Rip-Off Britain!

[15357]

Petrol is cheaper in America but there are also more idiots over there so it evens it out? How does that work?

Petrol is EVERYTHING, because every product needs to be shipped.

Uneducated population levels are the mass that produces the services needed for everything, including shipping, handling, ect.


However, that's not everything, because here, gasoline prices are 3 times that of the US, but games cost much less ($34 for a $50 game in the US, due to having such a big market for them).

 

[repiV]

That's fair enough, I didn't realise it was such a widespread issue

Yeah it is. The NHS is a shambles. Heroin on prescription for drug addicts and expensive liposuction treatments for people who made themselves fat, but hey...you old people who've contributed to the NHS all your life - well, tough, you can just go blind. And then we'll end up spending a fortune on you anyway, since you'll need round the clock care...

You're 'begging the question' here - this point is part of a higher-level debate

Well I think it's an important point. "Raise taxes" is often the answer to everything. Often people don't really consider how unfair taxes for public services are. Anyone with a lot of money is going to have private health cover anyway, but they'll still have to pay for the NHS they will never use. My new job I'm starting in January comes with BUPA cover but I won't get any tax breaks. Not that in my case I have a problem with that, since I have a medical history as long as a Lord of the Rings novel. In general, however...

That's not the nature of the problem. No one wants to pay tax, but most everyone accepts the need to maintain public services. The American people saw the need for universal healthcare. They were scared to fund it because Newt Gingrinch, along with unprecedented lobby support, used the issue to tear apart the democratic party. The public were misinformed. And Clinton's plan itself was for the most part unworkable. But the people were ready for it. It was the grasping ****s that enjoyed the huge markups on pharmaceuticals that got in the way.

What would universal healthcare in America accomplish?
The point is, if you dig a little deeper, it's not the brilliant and wonderful thing that it's made out to be. It's just a feel-good solution with as many drawbacks as positives. We've got so used to having certain services for "free" that we have lost much of the ability to evaluate them critically since we just accept it as normal and anything else as abhorrent.
Socialised healthcare makes you powerless. You have to pay for it no matter what, but a minister or a committee somewhere or other has the absolute authority to decide what you will or will not get treated for. And if you don't like it, there is nowhere else to turn to. No competition. You're just left to hang out to dry.
If you are covered by comprehensive health insurance and you get ill, you will be treated. And you will be treated a lot more quickly and efficiently than the NHS can do so. Since the budget depends on who needs care and the exchange of funds for each particular treatment, there is little danger of the system being overstretched or unable to provide.
Whereas with the NHS, having a finite budget that is not directly driven by demand, sacrifices have to be made. Some conditions are prioritised, while others lose out. People become disabled or die because there is simply not enough money to treat everyone.
Besides which, socialism goes against everything America stands for. The ideal behind that country is that you have the freedom to live your life in any way you want and accomplish anything you want, but you also have the responsibility to suffer the consequences if you are stupid, lazy, or otherwise inept. This is why America attracts all the top talent from the entire world - it offers a scope of opportunity unparalled anywhere else in the world. Don't think that's not harming European economies through brain drain.

Who will draft the legislation? You'd be slashing the profit margins of the insurers, which happen to be some of the biggest companies in Britain, excluding the international conglomerates and corporations. There's no way in hell a law like that would pass. As far as I can see, the only solution to 'one size fits all' insurance is to go public.

I would be happy with being able to claim tax returns if you are covered by private healthcare or if you or your immediate family have not used the services of the NHS in that fiscal year.
Or the NHS being slashed and turned into nothing but a safety net to provide vital treatments to people who are not covered by private insurance. Not an enormous bureaucratic network of universal healthcare.

 

[kirovman]

My Mum had a cyst thing removed from her eyelid by private healthcare (she couldn't do it on the NHS because it was "cosmetic").

Turns out that it was a "benign" tumour - but they said if she hadn't had it removed it would have tunneled into her eye and blinded her.

I've got Bupa healthcare now, because things like that scare me. It's worth the extra cost for peace of mind.

 

[jondy]

Yeah it is. The NHS is a shambles. Heroin on prescription for drug addicts and expensive liposuction treatments for people who made themselves fat, but hey...you old people who've contributed to the NHS all your life - well, tough, you can just go blind. And then we'll end up spending a fortune on you anyway, since you'll need round the clock care...

You're talking about methadone, not 'heroin on prescription', but point taken

What would universal healthcare in America accomplish?

There are almost 50 million people in the US right now without health insurance, most that earn enough to squeeze by 'poor law' coverage but aren't covered by their employers and can't afford it themselves. The problem is much deeper than that, though - people hanging on to jobs just for the cover, people laid off and left without insurance, general/county hospitals squeezed out by private companies, in which pharmaceutical companies can put to market drugs at inordinate markup prices, etc. etc. - read 'The System - American Politics at the Breaking Point' to get a good idea of the scale of the problems American healthcare faces, and the feasibilty of universal healthcare.

The whole 'private efficiency' argument flies out the window when you take a closer look at America's healthcare infrastructure. It's in desperate need of reform.

The point is, if you dig a little deeper, it's not the brilliant and wonderful thing that it's made out to be. It's just a feel-good solution with as many drawbacks as positives. We've got so used to having certain services for "free" that we have lost much of the ability to evaluate them critically since we just accept it as normal and anything else as abhorrent.
Socialised healthcare makes you powerless. You have to pay for it no matter what, but a minister or a committee somewhere or other has the absolute authority to decide what you will or will not get treated for. And if you don't like it, there is nowhere else to turn to. No competition. You're just left to hang out to dry.
If you are covered by comprehensive health insurance and you get ill, you will be treated. And you will be treated a lot more quickly and efficiently than the NHS can do so. Since the budget depends on who needs care and the exchange of funds for each particular treatment, there is little danger of the system being overstretched or unable to provide.
Whereas with the NHS, having a finite budget that is not directly driven by demand, sacrifices have to be made. Some conditions are prioritised, while others lose out. People become disabled or die because there is simply not enough money to treat everyone.

But all of this is a criticism of the NHS, and not public healthcare in general - which reform could go a way toward rectifying. I'm not saying the NHS is perfect, far from it, but in my opinion (and it really isn't an opinion when you look at American healthcare across the whole spectrum of living standards) it's infinitely preferable to the private healthcare system in America.

It's the only developed country in the world without universal health insurance. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells?

Besides which, socialism goes against everything America stands for. The ideal behind that country is that you have the freedom to live your life in any way you want and accomplish anything you want, but you also have the responsibility to suffer the consequences if you are stupid, lazy, or otherwise inept. This is why America attracts all the top talent from the entire world - it offers a scope of opportunity unparalled anywhere else in the world. Don't think that's not harming European economies through brain drain.

The 'American Dream' you're referencing has little in common with the reality experienced by the considerable number of people not on the gravy train.

I would be happy with being able to claim tax returns if you are covered by private healthcare or if you or your immediate family have not used the services of the NHS in that fiscal year.
Or the NHS being slashed and turned into nothing but a safety net to provide vital treatments to people who are not covered by private insurance. Not an enormous bureaucratic network of universal healthcare.

Your first point would result in the NHS being squeezed out of existence as companies latched onto the huge numbers of middle class who would jump on the bandwagon - which would then be game over for the people who couldn't afford their premiums, because of their income bracket, pre-existing conditions, laid off, etc. etc.

The second point is essentially American healthcare, and I've already explained why we don't want that

 

[repiV]

You're talking about methadone, not 'heroin on prescription', but point taken



There are almost 50 million people in the US right now without health insurance, most that earn enough to squeeze by 'poor law' coverage but aren't covered by their employers and can't afford it themselves. The problem is much deeper than that, though - people hanging on to jobs just for the cover, people laid off and left without insurance, general/county hospitals squeezed out by private companies, in which pharmaceutical companies can put to market drugs at inordinate markup prices, etc. etc. - read 'The System - American Politics at the Breaking Point' to get a good idea of the scale of the problems American healthcare faces, and the feasibilty of universal healthcare.

I'm not saying the American system is great. I'm not even saying it's better than the NHS. What I am saying is that this issue requires a lot more thought than "public = good, private = bad".

The whole 'private efficiency' argument flies out the window when you take a closer look at America's healthcare infrastructure. It's in desperate need of reform.

But all of this is a criticism of the NHS, and not public healthcare in general - which reform could go a way toward rectifying. I'm not saying the NHS is perfect, far from it, but in my opinion (and it really isn't an opinion when you look at American healthcare across the whole spectrum of living standards) it's infinitely preferable to the private healthcare system in America.

I don't know enough about other public healthcare systems to make a judgment one way or another. Although this highlights another problem with public systems. There will always be times when the management is incompetent and people are left hanging out to dry. This system provides no insurance against ****ups in decision-making, whereas with a free market system you can just go to a competitor. And competition keeps the quality of services high.

It's the only developed country in the world without universal health insurance. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells?

Hong Kong doesn't have socialised healthcare either, by the way. It's also far more capitalist than the States. Just felt like pointing that out - technically Hong Kong isn't a country of course. But it IS one of the most developed.
However, no, it doesn't ring alarm bells. It's just that America sticks to American principles (although that trend is seriously declining recently). It's a very introspective society, where often the only point of comparison used is American history, American examples, other US states etc.
Nations like Britain are outward-looking, adopting the methods of others and following trends. Taking an intense interest in other cultures.
I believe this is the primary factor behind the stark differences between the USA and the rest of the developed world. They have a national identity that is far fiercer and more inflexible than any other developed country.
It doesn't mean that the way America does things is necessarily inferior or backwards just because it stands alone.

The 'American Dream' you're referencing has little in common with the reality experienced by the considerable number of people not on the gravy train.

Is it relevant?
This is not the fault of the American system, but the fault of people who are unable or unwilling to utilise that system to get ahead. I think you'll have a hard time denying that America is by far the best place for individual opportunities. Then the problem cannot be that of the system, but of the people.

Your first point would result in the NHS being squeezed out of existence as companies latched onto the huge numbers of middle class who would jump on the bandwagon - which would then be game over for the people who couldn't afford their premiums, because of their income bracket, pre-existing conditions, laid off, etc. etc.

The second point is essentially American healthcare, and I've already explained why we don't want that

Since when does American healthcare provide anything for free?