New Health Care system in USA

by Kenzu Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:22 am

I cannot believe that it has really happened. To be honest, even though I saw how much Obama was trying to make a reform on health care to give basic access to health care to all US citizens, I was certain he will fail, just like Hillary Clinton failed before and everyone else who tried before her.

This is a moment all Americans can be proud of! It's nice to see USA is making progress, afterall its health care system didn't improve for how many years? 60 years since Roosevelt?

I was reading how the new system will work, and even though it will still not be as good as the system in EU countries, things will improve quite a lot especially for the poorest Americans, afterall they need the help the most.

Congratulations people of USA!

When I was watching US news it was funny to listen to some of the opinions, who were against the health reform. The opponents were making a dirty campaign, not only against the health reform, but also against European countries making retarded claims, such as saying that people in Europe couldn't receive an operation they needed just because the state wouldn't let them have it. That's complete bullshit. If someone would be saying such things here in Europe, no one would be taking that person serious.

The only reason why the health care system hasn't been improved for so many years, was because those who profit from exploiting the patients in the health care industry were spending billions of dollars on propaganda, to make people believe that they would be worse of if government regulated health care.

There are some industries which simply cannot work if they are not regulated by the government, because of their inherent flaws to distribute goods and services to everyone who needs them. This flaws exist only because the providers of these goods and services will change the price to reach a goal, which is profit maximisation and not the goal of providing it to everyone who needs it. Therefore market segments such as health care, education, security/police force, firefighting, national defense, energy, telecommunications and are doomed to fail if they are not provided by, or regulated by the state.

What is your opinion on the health care reform in USA?

by Osyndicate Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:08 pm

I am honestly not worried or pleased. The reform focuses primarily on the "poor", or the "lower-class" and unfortunately, I am in the mid-class and the only benefit from the reform I get is higher taxes. But when the day comes that everyone gets the effects of this reform, god damn will I be happy, I have gotten sick so many times this (past) year that I would have loved to have a 15 dollar stop at the doctors, but since I don't have health insurance it would cost $95-115!

I have done the math, and if everyone in the USA gets pissed about an extra 150-250 a year, in return for helping out 1/10 (30mil) of USA's population, they should leave our fine country.

Oh yea, one more tid bit about living in USA. I live in Wyoming, we have (State Wide) about 437,000 people, and the stimulous sent out some (Ok, I don't know how much actually god sent, but I am guessing..) 27-35 million dollars to WY. Every road in the state is gradually getting paved/redone. Teachers salaries are (From what I heard) 7th highest in the nation, our students/kids test scores are about 7th in the country, and hospitals as well as wildlife areas are getting a spic and span revamp. It is amazing how such a "small" sum of money can do for such a "small" state. So far Obama is on my good side, and the "Obamacare" doesn't change my opinion of him one bit.

Thanks for bringing this up Kenzu.

by skyfighter Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:19 pm

This is definitly a step in the right direction. This won't stop rich trying to get richer, but maybe one day people's lives will be more important than bank bills that worth nothing without the people to power it...

by Sandwalker Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:53 pm

Took them long enough ... and it's still not in full effect. Next phase is in 2012 if I'm not mistaken.

by seaborgium Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:37 pm

it will be 2014 before its all in place Sad

by ian Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:36 am

As a British conservative MP stated "I wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone".

Its worth remembering that the USA consistently outgrows european economies every year... in large part due to their economy being a lot more competitive due to the lack of welfare institutes. As the reform is at the moment... its a pretty good advancement. But if the USA starts to build on it and expand it... it could come at the cost of economic growth/ competitiveness... which will have far reaching consequences.

by kingkongfan1 Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:28 pm

can't say what the future holds, but let me tell you my story:
I was born with a mild form of cerebral palsey, not bad enough to be declared legally disabled but bad enough that it knocked me out of getting the really good paying jobs. worked my ass off since I got out of school, paid my taxes, paid my own way, I have recently at the age of 42 been declared legally disabled by the U.S. courts due to a combination of things, 1)the afore mentioned C.P., 2) a condition known as Crohns disease, 3) degenerative bone disease, now out of all the money I paid into the system for all the years I spent busting my hump, roughly 25 years, all I get is an $800.00 check a month for me & my daughter to live on. my daughter gets 100% coverage on her medical & prescriptions, thank goodness, but no coverage for eyecare or dental, I only get 80% coverage on medical & some assistance with prescriptions, I also have no coverage for eyecare or dental, & to make matters worse I cannot go get important tests done because I cannot afford the 20% difference in the cost of the procedures, (thousands of dollars), so what good is the coverage I have now??? none to me, it is as useless as tits on a boarhog... & the really sad part is its not gonna get any better, these changes, that have been brought on by this bill do not help me at all... it's only gonna get worse for me & others in similar situations as mine... & don't worry cause as soon as I am proven wrong,(or right) on this issue I'll be back to let all you know... nuff said... king

by FarleShadow Thu Mar 25, 2010 3:34 pm

ian wrote:As a British conservative MP stated "I wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone".

Its worth remembering that the USA consistently outgrows european economies every year... in large part due to their economy being a lot more competitive due to the lack of welfare institutes. As the reform is at the moment... its a pretty good advancement. But if the USA starts to build on it and expand it... it could come at the cost of economic growth/ competitiveness... which will have far reaching consequences.

Yea, the USA does well for itself by not supporting the underlings of society, good for the guys at the top, bad for the guys at the bottom. I personally think its a good idea on the surface, but I can't really be bothered to look into the bill proper, but as I understand it, its not a free lunch type of deal just a subsidised lunch deal for the poor. Economic growth is good, but if all you're doing is creating ever-increasing numbers of disinfrancised poor people, its going to self-destruct all over itself.

And the NHS, as much as it is bashed, is fucked, but that's because of Labour increasing the number of managers ("We get a 25% efficiency saving with our first manager! Lets keep adding them!") and by giving them cushy jobs that they can rarely get sacked from, all its done is saddle ever-increasing amounts of expenses onto a system designed for health.

I personally think if someone gave me authority over the entire NHS system and legal protection (So that the managers/etc couldn't sue when I fired their useless asses) I could probably get alot of NHS hospitals running alot smoother.

by Kenzu Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:39 am

ian wrote:As a British conservative MP stated "I wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone".

Its worth remembering that the USA consistently outgrows european economies every year... in large part due to their economy being a lot more competitive due to the lack of welfare institutes. As the reform is at the moment... its a pretty good advancement. But if the USA starts to build on it and expand it... it could come at the cost of economic growth/ competitiveness... which will have far reaching consequences.

Not sure what you mean by outgrowing, but if you mean that USA increases it's GDP mure than EU, then I would like to let you know that GDP is not an accurate measure of wealth.

Let me show this on a few examples:

1)
The climate in most of EU is moderate and continental, the climate in USA is roughly to 1/3 continental, 1/3 dry and 1/3 humid subtropical. In other words, USA has a much bigger proportion of areas, where people need to use air conditioning in order to feel comfortable during summer. In Europe, there are not many such areas: maybe south of Italy, Spain and Greece.

This means that US citizens spend much more money on air conditioning that Europe, and thus they increase their GDP, but don't feel better than Europeans, because people in Germany, France and Britain don't need to use air conditioning during summer, because the temperature is still acceptable and the air isn't moist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ClimateMap_World.png

2)
USA has much less nationalised companies than Europe. Privatised companies tend to offer services and much higher prices than nationalised companies. While in USA most branches are privatised, EU has majority health care nationalised (there are still some privatised hospitals), some countries have free univeristy education, some energy, transportation industries are nationalised, housing is partly nationalised.

Privatised companies increase GDP much more than nationalised ones, because nationalised companies increase GDP by the production cost if the service is provided for free, or by the low revenue, since they offer services at low prices, while privatised ones increase GDP by their reveneue which came from overpricing their products to maximise profits.

Let us look at the example of housing in Austria.
Austria has in addition to private housing also state owned homes. One third of the city's population lives in such homes.

The monthly rent is 3 Euro per m2
if the appartment is less than 30 m2, you pay only 2 Euro per m2

A couple would get an appartment with 45-50 m2, they would pay a rent of 150 Euro per month.

If you rent the same appartment from someone who owns it apartment and isn't the government, you will have to pay over 10 Euro per m2,
so over 500 Euro each month.

Let's just assume that all housing would be nationalised, then the 600.000 people who pay 150 Euro to the state each month, would pay 500 Euro to the owner of the appartment and the GDP would increase by 210 million Euro, even though no wealth is generated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeindebau

3)
USA has much higher income inequality than EU. Therefore, even if average US citizen earns more than an average EU citizen, there is a bigger proportion of EU citizens who have a good life than US citizens, simply because income is distributed more equally.

Below you can see 2 countries.
Country A has average income 200, but 80% poorest earn only 50
Country B has average income 150, but 80% poorest earn 100

Country A: (total income 2000) average income: 200
Incomes:
1500
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

Country B: (total income 1500) average income: 150
Incomes:
500
200
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

4)
Leisure time doesnt count towards GDP, but is crucial in a persons welfare.
people in USA mork more hours than people in EU. If we assume that everyone earns the same per hour, then people in USA would earn more income since they work more, but then again people in EU have more leisure time. Leisure time doesn't increase GDP, but it increase the welfare of people. One person might work 60 hours a week and get more income than someone, who works only 40 hours, but that doesnt mean that the first person is better off. It all depends on how much you value your free time.

by ian Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:42 pm

Kenzu, let me rephrase that another way then.

The US economy generates far higher revenues which the government can tax than their european counterparts. These revenue levels grow generally faster than their european counterparts... which means more money for the US government.

In large part by keeping any form of welfare system to a minimum - the USA generally enjoys far lower tax's than European Countries. This in turn makes the USA more attractive for foreign investment etc... - which in turn provides the USA with an increased revenue of funds, more jobs etc.. etc... They are simply a more competitive economy than european one's generally.

However... this is all kinda a mute point. My point was the US healthcare reforms as they stand seem pretty good - but they should be cautious adopting a more indepth wider healthcare system without looking at all possible options - otherwise they may find they ll have to invest ever greater funds towards it which could have long-term consequences i.e. increased taxation, or reduced funds for other departments etc...

As for my comment referencing the UK NHS - it is a disaster. Do not get me wrong... the doctors and nurses of the NHS do a fantastic job. Free-health care IS great and the UK should never get rid of it.

However.... its worth remembering that the NHS's budget over the last 14 years has been more than tripled... and thats barely enough to keep the system running at an acceptable level. The UK is now facing the next decade or 2 with very restricted finances... and in all seriousness, the NHS will find its budget only slightly increased.

My concern is that if the NHS could barely function effectively with its budget being rapidly expanded (tripled) over the last decade.... whats going to happen to it - in terms of quality of service - over the next decade when funds are far more restricted and generally unavailable?

There's also the effects its had on other departments i.e. defence - which with the NHS sucking the budget dry the UK is now facing a defence crisis (we have a £36billion shortfall in terms of the funds we ll have for the next 10 years, and the funds we ll need just for the EXISTING projects underway... let alone new projects!!!) - and we don't have the fund's to plug the gap. Education is another thing, research & development etc... - where one department has huge financial needs... the other departments suffer as a consequence.

The USA at all costs must plan ahead if they plan to expand/ build on the new system... otherwise if they remain short-sighted in 30 years time or so they might find themselves in a similar budgetary situation like the UK does now....

by Kenzu Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:33 am

It's is obvious that in an country with ageing population the health expenditure will grow fast. And that's pretty much every European country.

But if the government wouldn't pay for it, the people would have to. And we all know what happens if a price tag is placed on health. People will be turned away and unless you are rich, if you get some serious illness, even if it's curable, you will die.

Nationalised health care is the only possibility we have to prevent such horrible thing to happen.

As far as I know NHS in UK is doing a very good job.

I think that even Margaret Thatcher said that health care should remain in the hands of the government, and she is a hard core liberal who wants to see almost everything else privatised.

I think USA won't have the same problems UK faces. Afterall the population of USA keeps increasing very fast due to immigration and much higher fertility rate than European countries have. A lot of "fresh blood" is comming to USA, which means that they can keep a big proportion of population in the working age, while Europe has more and more people over 60/70 who leave work.

How can Europe tackle that?
1) Provide less health services
Which is unlikely, because parties which do that will lose the next elections, and will face riots and massive protests

2) Increase taxes
With such a high level of taxes, there is not much space for increase. Taxes above 50% tend to be counter productive

3) Increase retirement age
I think this is the most likely one. There are much more people now, who at 65 years are still able to work, then 100 years ago, mainly due to our good health care system. This means that the age at which you can retire might first capped at say 65 years, and you cannot retire earlier (Some retire even at 50 right now). And I can imagine it will be increasing even up to 70 or 75 years. But it can bring big problems in determining who is still able to work and who isn't.

Why will USA be much less affected by this, if at all?
Because US population grows, while most of Europe stagnates population wise or grows by very little

Country Population increase in %

Spain 0.77
France 0.49
United Kingdom0.42
Netherlands 0.21
Italy 0.13
Germany -0.07
Poland -0.15
Romania -0.45
Russia -0.51
Slovakia 0.03

I'd also like to note that France and UK, which are growing a lot faster than most of Europe are growing a lot thanks to immigration.

Developed countries, are doomed to loose population, unless they let a lot immigrants come, or if the government gives great help to families who have more children. And by that I don't mean only to give the families monetary support, there should be enough kindergardens for every child so that they parents can go to work and a good education system, which will prevent the parents to go broke if they decide to send their child to a university.

by FarleShadow Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:30 am

What? Kenzu are you even on the same plane of reality to the rest of us?

The NHS isn't doing such a stellar job, The nationalised health care model is doomed to become a bloated, overloaded system that, at last count, is employing more people by percentage of population than CHINA. And thanks to the babyboomers, the UK is now reaching a point where old people will outnumber the young and our tax revenue (Thanks Blair and Brown, I hope you enjoy hell) is going to be ever decreasing.

The idea that the government (Oh, I'm sorry, you mean the taxpayer, Governments don't generate wealth, they steal it) is going to be able to pay for the increasing bloat is by taxing those who actually generate money, aka the middle classes, which will in turn reduce aspirations (Why earn more when you ultimately end up with the same amount of money as a guy who works at McDonalds), destroying the very country they're trying to 'save' healthwise.

Sure as shit the US does healthcare better, atleast there the useless members of the population (benefit whores, etc) don't drain the NHS money of those who do and that allows the US to be far more competitive than the UK or anywhere in Europe. I'd rather pay insurance and have less tax than pay more tax and help Ms. McBabyFarm have her 13th kid.

by Kenzu Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:42 am

FarleShadow wrote:What? Kenzu are you even on the same plane of reality to the rest of us?

The NHS isn't doing such a stellar job, The nationalised health care model is doomed to become a bloated, overloaded system that, at last count, is employing more people by percentage of population than CHINA. And thanks to the babyboomers, the UK is now reaching a point where old people will outnumber the young and our tax revenue (Thanks Blair and Brown, I hope you enjoy hell) is going to be ever decreasing.

There is no such thing as free lunch. If the government doesn't pay for it, the individuals will have to. And since there is inequality, many people would drown in the expenditures and end up dead.

I prefer government pay for health care then people, because it is certain that if people have to pay for it, many will go bankrupt, but if the government pays, it is safer, since governments tend not to go bankrupt.

FarleShadow wrote:The idea that the government (Oh, I'm sorry, you mean the taxpayer, Governments don't generate wealth, they steal it) is going to be able to pay for the increasing bloat is by taxing those who actually generate money, aka the middle classes, which will in turn reduce aspirations (Why earn more when you ultimately end up with the same amount of money as a guy who works at McDonalds), destroying the very country they're trying to 'save' healthwise.

Governments redistribute wealth, and even though they don't redistribute wealth 100% efficiently, without governments people would be much worse off.

"Why earn more when you ultimately end up with the same amount of money as a guy who works at McDonalds"
=> This never happens. If person A earns more than person B, then person A will pay more taxes and at the same time have more money than person B.

Average incomes in Austria:

Job - Yearly income in euro - TAX = income after tax

Cleaning person: 11.837 - 305 TAX = 11.532 euro income after tax
University Graduate: 30.800 - 7.616 TAX = 23.184 euro income after tax
Construction worker: 34.345 - 9.148 TAX = 25.197 euro income after tax
Highschool teacher: 46.685 - 9.727 TAX = 36.958 euro income after tax
Dentist: 95.216 - 37.843 TAX = 57.373 euro income after tax
chairman/CEO: 200.000 - 90.232 TAX = 109.768 euro income after tax
Top earning managers up to: 4.300.000 - 2.140.235 TAX = 2.159.765

This proves the the more income you earn, the more income you have left after taxes.
It also shows how unjust this world is, since there are people who earn up to 200 times more than hard working people.
I dont think that there is a single person who works 5 times harder than a construction worker.
There is no reason for anyone to earn 200.000 euro per year, if there are people working 40 hours a week and earning only 12.000

FarleShadow wrote:Sure as shit the US does healthcare better, atleast there the useless members of the population (benefit whores, etc) don't drain the NHS money of those who do and that allows the US to be far more competitive than the UK or anywhere in Europe. I'd rather pay insurance and have less tax than pay more tax and help Ms. McBabyFarm have her 13th kid.

The problem with private insurance is that they will not pay you when you need it, they will only pay you either if its cheap, or if they are forced to pay you and you would beat them in court if they hadn't.

by skyfighter Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:42 pm

"I'd rather pay insurance and have less tax than pay more tax and help Ms. McBabyFarm have her 13th kid."

That shows how many people are so selfish that they rather have a few more bills in their pocket than helping someone who is dying. No wonder with people like you it's gonna be hard to make humanity advance for the well-being of their citizens instead of having the bigger house/best car in town.

by FarleShadow Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:31 pm

skyfighter wrote:"I'd rather pay insurance and have less tax than pay more tax and help Ms. McBabyFarm have her 13th kid."

That shows how many people are so selfish that they rather have a few more bills in their pocket than helping someone who is dying. No wonder with people like you it's gonna be hard to make humanity advance for the well-being of their citizens instead of having the bigger house/best car in town.

The pace of humanity's development is inconsequential to the question of 'Do we support the lowest common denominator?', in fact, by supporting the LCD you are infact draining away resources that could be otherwise used to advance science or support educational programs. The assumption that I 'want a bigger house/etc' is incorrect, I would be more than happy to contribute some of my tax towards any portion of society that can't work but makes an effort to be even alittle productive or assisting to the society that supports them.*

But what I can't fucking stand is the idea that I should pay my money towards people who are clearly able yet completely unwilling to do anything other than hoover up any handouts they get.

If that makes me a cunt, so be it.

*Extremely disabled/incapable of work excluded, they can 'live' for free.

by FarleShadow Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:47 pm

Kenzu wrote:

There is no such thing as free lunch. If the government doesn't pay for it, the individuals will have to. And since there is inequality, many people would drown in the expenditures and end up dead.

I prefer government pay for health care then people, because it is certain that if people have to pay for it, many will go bankrupt, but if the government pays, it is safer, since governments tend not to go bankrupt.

Governments have this nasty tendancy to utilise every fucking thing they can effect for political ends, which is sometimes massively worse than a simple corporation who is only trying to profit from healthcare, Governments also tend to be monsterously inefficient when it comes to....anything, the NHS is a prime example where government intervention has massively increased the amount of money they need but DECREASED quality of care. As for paying for healthcare? I actually do believe that healthcare should be national, but that the government should not be allowed to fuck around with the mechanics of hospitals.

Governments redistribute wealth, and even though they don't redistribute wealth 100% efficiently, without governments people would be much worse off.

This proves the the more income you earn, the more income you have left after taxes.
It also shows how unjust this world is, since there are people who earn up to 200 times more than hard working people.
I dont think that there is a single person who works 5 times harder than a construction worker.
There is no reason for anyone to earn 200.000 euro per year, if there are people working 40 hours a week and earning only 12.000

Governments redistributing wealth is ALWAYS A BAD IDEA, look at the current labour government, they have 'declared war on the middle classes' in terms of tax and utilised funds to buy off many lower class people (Who recieve benefits from them). By redistributing wealth from higher earners, they're effectively buying an election whilst also bankrupting the most productive members of society (Superrich don't count), which means less productive society, on and on to bankrupcy.

And I do enjoy the rather communism-esqe idea you have about 'hard working people'. Your 'construction worker', how much training does he recieve? Is he required to be intelligent? Does construction require several years of study before one can build a house?

The answer to all of these is: Not really. But a doctor, who spends nearly a decade of training recieves probably 5+ times a construction worker's salary, would you begrudge that doctor's salary to 'make it fair' for the construction worker? The idea of a fair society (Should we all be bred from the same genetic stock then? So we're all the same inside?) is a laughable one, spread around because humanity has always had this retarded affection for the concept of 'fairness', even if what they decide is fair for them is unfair for anyone else.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:27 am

And I do enjoy the rather communism-esqe idea you have about 'hard working people'.

I thought it was common knowledge that Kenzu is communist... king

by FarleShadow Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:57 am

kingkongfan1 wrote:And I do enjoy the rather communism-esqe idea you have about 'hard working people'.

I thought it was common knowledge that Kenzu is communist...

Oh yea, I forgot WR had the 13 year old boy communism ideal in it.

My bad.

by ¤ Angel Slayer Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:57 am

I think it's good that all americans will have health insurance, "But only if they want it".
I don't think they should be forced to have any health insurance if they don't wish too.
Pretty sure Obama won't be serving a second term lol, Republicians will probally be rulling the House in Nov. Elections, This "World" is so F'd up it's insane, Not just america, but every where on this whole planet, I say we get rid of all goverments, all police and laws, all cars/trucks,companys/planes and ships, and we go back living the way things used to be, Have no wars for we arn't devided, We are as one people, the human people,
No bombs, No guns, Just bow n arrows and a knife to hunt with, No taxes to buy or sell or to live, Live in tents, get rid of all the buildings and factorys, Live simple lives and the world will be cleaner and restore her beauty that we all destroyed, We'll be much healthier too. Ok I'm done lol
Have fun Laughing

by kingkongfan1 Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:26 am

¤ Angel Slayer wrote:I think it's good that all americans will have health insurance, "But only if they want it".
I don't think they should be forced to have any health insurance if they don't wish too.
Pretty sure Obama won't be serving a second term lol, Republicians will probally be rulling the House in Nov. Elections, This "World" is so F'd up it's insane, Not just america, but every where on this whole planet, I say we get rid of all goverments, all police and laws, all cars/trucks,companys/planes and ships, and we go back living the way things used to be, Have no wars for we arn't devided, We are as one people, the human people,
No bombs, No guns, Just bow n arrows and a knife to hunt with, No taxes to buy or sell or to live, Live in tents, get rid of all the buildings and factorys, Live simple lives and the world will be cleaner and restore her beauty that we all destroyed, We'll be much healthier too. Ok I'm done lol
Have fun

I can agree with this; I like this Idea, when do we start? king

by Alex Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:48 am

¤ Angel Slayer wrote:I think it's good that all americans will have health insurance, "But only if they want it".
I don't think they should be forced to have any health insurance if they don't wish too.
Pretty sure Obama won't be serving a second term lol, Republicians will probally be rulling the House in Nov. Elections, This "World" is so F'd up it's insane, Not just america, but every where on this whole planet, I say we get rid of all goverments, all police and laws, all cars/trucks,companys/planes and ships, and we go back living the way things used to be, Have no wars for we arn't devided, We are as one people, the human people,
No bombs, No guns, Just bow n arrows and a knife to hunt with, No taxes to buy or sell or to live, Live in tents, get rid of all the buildings and factorys, Live simple lives and the world will be cleaner and restore her beauty that we all destroyed, We'll be much healthier too. Ok I'm done lol
Have fun

Sounds awesome, pity it won't happen short of humans going extinct...

-Alex

by FarleShadow Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:20 pm

lol, no police, laws, etc?

Have fun dying of cholera while raiders take your shit and rape your women.

by Sandwalker Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:52 pm

FarleShadow wrote:lol, no police, laws, etc?

Have fun dying of cholera while raiders take your shit and rape your women.

Not to mention an infection would mean death. A broken leg would mean death either directly or by making you useless in providing for yourself. There would be no modern medicine so you'd have to fuck fast and fuck plenty, odds are you'll die before your mid 30's and most of your kids won't make it to 5. Oh, yeah, your mate will probably die during childbirth.

Yes, Angel Slayer, the "good" old days, gotta love 'em. I myself love to see them in movies. I would sure as fuck not want to be one of those sad illiterate schmucks, but HEY, maybe you don't enjoy reading, writing, electricity, clean water, a toilet (toilet PAPER), plumbing, clean clothes, medicine, security, an education, freedom to choose and choices, gadgets, a car, a bike, infrastructure, life beyond 30 yo...

Well, who needs all those things (and more) as long as you can run in the woods for hours, stinking of shit, trying to hit a deer with a sharp stick, missing, then starving for a day and resort to chewing grass and acorns. That's the life for me, yes sir.

PS: Short of fucking Lord of the Rings [insert any other fantasy work where the human race unites as one against some form of evil or whatnot] (and even that at the very god damn end), when the hell were we one people, with no wars and crap? Are you sure you're remembering your history right? Maybe you switched it with some book inspired from a hippie's wet dream where everyone was holding hands and singing Kumbaya. No dude, wrong, false, caca.

PPS: Oh wait, I know when there were no wars. I'm pretty sure during this there were no wars, mostly because our ancestors were too busy not dying (and fucking like rabbits; humans are pretty good at fucking through disasters it seems).

by ian Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:17 pm

I have to agree with FarleShadow on this one.

Those of you criticising him you need to stop and do your research. The United Kingdom's current welfare structure is doomed. No If's or But's - it is.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2009/11/how-many-people-work-for-the-government.html

Where do all the fund's come from to pay for everyone who is dependent upon the government for their income - whether by being on the doll or employed - directly or indirectly - for the government/ because of the government policy? Remember this is 2010 with a relatively "young" population compared to what the UK will have by 2060 when the effects of an agiiing population really start to hit home... meaning even less workers and more people dependent upon the state.

More importantly - why should we even have a "fair" society when it comes to wealth distribution? If someone works a lot harder than someone else... its only fair that that person earns a lot more than the other person. If someone's more skilled than someone else, its only fair that person earns more than the other.

The UK is in serious trouble. We are massively in debt - we cannot afford to sustain the huge number of people employed in the public sector. We need to privatise a lot of services - including if necessary the NHS (though i do believe in free-healthcare - personally i d like to see ALL healthcare in the UK privately provided, with the government simply paying the bill for any healthcare needed by its citizens - thus cutting out the need for the government to run and maintain the NHS... which i personally think it does hopelessly inefficiently).

The maths is simple. If we say a NHS worker gets £30,000 a year - and there's a 40% tax rate. £30,000 x 0.4 = £12,000 back to the government in tax's... that means that NHS worker is a drain on the government of £18,000 a year.

If we privatise the NHS - and consequently that NHS worker becomes an employee of a private company - and if we then say their wage remains the same - £30,000 a year - and the tax rate remains at 40%. Thats £12,000 the government gets towards its budget.

With the NHS being nationally run - there is a £18,000 drain on the government budget every year for that single worker. With the NHS being privatised... there is a £12,000 bonuse to the government budget every year. The difference is consequently by privatising the NHS in this example the government budget is £30,000 better off.

Now if we say the NHS has 1.368million staff - and then say the average income for all of those staff is £30,000 (its not... its actually higher i think)

1,368,000 x £30,000 = £41,040,000,000. By privatising the NHS in the above example... the government budget would be £41billion £40million better off. Thats just the staff wages in the example (which isn't accurate). On top of that by privitasing you cut out running costs - so no more costs for building upkeep, no more cost for machinery, medicine, utility bills etc... etc...

On the other hand - if we privatise the NHS and then have the government simply pay the bill for any healthcare given to its citizens - then the cost of this would have to be factored in... and since the private companies would be out to make a profit - by very definition the bill's given to citizens would cover the costs to the private company of staff wages, medicine, building upkeep, utility bills etc... + profit. Then again... the government would also tax this as well (so if we say 40% tax rate - the government automatically gets 40% of its "bill" cost back).

The question consequently arises - which is financially more viable? A nationally run NHS which provides free-healthcare - or a privately run NHS which the government pays the healthcare bills of its citizens for? The end product is the same - free healthcare for the populace of the UK.

Which is better would inevitably come down to whether the private companies could run the healthservice more efficiently (and therefore more cheaply) than the government - and whether these cheaper costs would be reflected in lower healthcare bills?

Its a question i can't answer - to answer it would require a indepth government multi-party AND private sector & investment research and analysis of such a prospect... coupled with input from the general public. But its a question the UK eventually may have to ask itself - and one which shouldn't simply be ruled out because on the face of it its "unfair".

The same question can also be applied to the civil service, education etc.... - and basically the entire public-sector in general (exception i believe should be the armed forces... they should remain nationally "owned" and controlled... and thus accountable to a democratically elected government - which is in turn accountable to the public).

Things aren't as clear cut as left-wing people would like to make out.

Fortunately for the world the Soviet Union collapsed due to the idiotic policies (i.e. such as threatening the world, and thus bankrupting itself in a armed race) it pursued, coupled with it not being able to match the west's good old capitalist way of doing things. The European Union may well be the heading the same way (hopefully) - since generally most of the european welfare systems are unsustainable/ negatively impacting the economic competitivity of the economies - or certainly will be once the effects of agiing populations start to make their presence felt.

In the last 20 years or so the UK's political spectrum has generally been becoming ever more right-wing (i.e. labour of today is far more right-wing than what it traditionally was 40 years ago - this reflects the general trend happening within british society of more and more "middle class" and less "working class").

by Nomad Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:17 pm

@ Ian

just wanted to say that if you privatize healthcare, the cost goes UP substatially. As you said they want to make money. CEO will be making mills in bonuses, maybe even billions.

Now if they can be more efficient they may can keep the same price as government did by cutting pay for workers to increase the bonuses to CEO's butr the price will definitely NOT go down.

by Sponsored content

New Health Care system in USA

The new health care system will make health care in USA

New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA

Re: New Health Care system in USA