RE: This explains a lot (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

deathtothepixies -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 2:30:38 AM)

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

Feel free to click on median wealth as opposed to mean wealth, as it says

"There's a list based on means, but because wealth is distributed very unequally, the median may represent average wealth more accurately."

America is highly iniquitous country, shown here

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

Using the median America falls to 23rd and the UK is 6th

As usual with statistics there is more than one way of going about things, let the cherry picking commence



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 2:55:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa
I talked with someone from the United Kingdom, in order to see a specialist, it could take more than a year for an available appointment!

Not usually the case.

True, there are some people who have the misfortune of getting lost in the paper chase, but most people are usually seen within a few weeks. I believe the current "target" waiting time is 18 weeks and most of the country seem to be better than 90% on hitting those targets.
The Mrs, from initial diagnosis/referral to having the special brain scan at a major London hospital AND getting the results back to her GP was about 3 weeks.

I don't know who you spoke with but they must have been one of the unlucky ones.
Most of the people I meet in my surgery complain of waiting a month for a specialist appointment and my brother (who suffers a form of CJD) rarely waits more than 4-5 weeks for his specialist appointments and he lives on the opposite side of the country.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa
This is what happens with "free" healthcare.

Bit of a sweeping brush statement that I and my relatives do not find to be true.

Sort of like "I knew someone once who...." and extrapolate that to include the whole populace.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa
Although it still isn't really free, on one hand it comes out of your pocket along with everything else that goes with taxes, on the other hand, it's insurance and you know full well the cost of it.

True, it's not "free", as everyone knows it isn't.
But it's not insurance either - that is something extra you can buy if you want it.
Insurance coverage has limitations, get-out clauses, pre-condition exclusions, claim maximums, deductables.... yada yada yada; and it's expensive.

Our 'free' national health coverage has none of the conditions imposed by any insurance companies.
It is indeed absolutely free for anyone on a low income, receives benefits or pensions, or is under 18 - it doesn't cost them a single red cent for any treatment or prescriptions.
We generally don't pay for any ambulances either.

Had an accident or having a child?? You go into hospital, get your treatment any time 24/7, doesn't matter how long you're in there for or how many specialists or operations you need or nursing staff to look after you or drugs for your condition, come out when you're recovered, transport to/from the hospital..... doesn't cost Joe Average a bean - it's all free, as in, it doesn't cost a red cent out of your pocket; before, during, or afterwards.
For those that work above the minimum wage limits, it costs about 8.6% of income as N.I payments - there's no way you could get any sort of comprehensive (or even very basic) health insurance for that sort of money.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa
I think the way the system is right now is probably better, at least for those who don't want to wait a year to see a specialist [whether it be a cardiologist, orthopedic surgeon, etc]

Seeing a specialist for whatever condition is really no different to seeing your GP or going to your local ER.
It seems you have been mis-informed.



crazyml -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:21:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"


Ah, there's a "study" to debate is there?

So far I've only seen a couple of blog entries. Could you point me to the "study", or are you so utterly fucking stupid that you think a "blog entry" is the same as a "study"?




crazyml -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:29:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kkaliforniaa

I talked with someone from the United Kingdom, in order to see a specialist, it could take more than a year for an available appointment! This is what happens with "free" healthcare. Although it still isn't really free, on one hand it comes out of your pocket along with everything else that goes with taxes, on the other hand, it's insurance and you know full well the cost of it. I think the way the system is right now is probably better, at least for those who don't want to wait a year to see a specialist [whether it be a cardiologist, orthopedic surgeon, etc]


This person from the United Kingdom is terribly mistaken. The NHS is under a legal obligation to provide access to a specialist within 18 weeks.

And you're right, it isn't free in the UK, it's paid for in taxes. By the way, the UK govt spends less on healthcare than the US govt does per capita, before you add private contributions.

It's worth noting, that when it comes to healthcare the UK's system is ranked 18th in the world by the WHO, while the US system is ranked 37th.

But never mind!





freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:35:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

But their free health care and all their other welfare programs are SO fantastic that they make up for their government destroying their economy in order to pay for it all. Right?

Interesting... but wrong.

The UK has the fastest growth rate of any of the G7 countries since the global recession - and that includes the USA!
Destroying the economy?? I don't think so. [:)]



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:38:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"


Actually, I think they say "bollocks" over there. Bullocks was a department store.

Spot-on Zonie!!! [:D]

It is indeed "bollocks", not "bullocks".



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:49:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
And you're right, it isn't free in the UK, it's paid for in taxes. By the way, the UK govt spends less on healthcare than the US govt does per capita, before you add private contributions.

It's worth noting, that when it comes to healthcare the UK's system is ranked 18th in the world by the WHO, while the US system is ranked 37th.

Not bad eh???

If you added all the US private/insurance costs, the average US citizen spends waay more than we do on their healthcare. And ours has no exclusions or conditions whatsoever (unlike the insurance schemes in the US).
Couple that with the fact that we pay less tax than the average American, I deffo think we have a better system here.

For a country that spends quite a bit less per capita than the US (and that's only the government expense figures), we don't do so bad then [:)]



crazyml -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 3:58:16 AM)

It's not entirely true that our system has "no exclusions", some treatments, and some drugs, are simply not available on the NHS.

There is an independent organization (independent of both Government and Healthcare providers) called NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) that advises on what drugs/treatments should be available.

NICE is a statutory organization, set up by act of parliament - so subject to oversight via the democratic process. Where NICE determines that a particular treatment should not be available, that decision can be challenged in court.

This is a significant contrast to privately funded systems where every insurer has a vested commercial interest in denying treatment, which let's face it is something of a conflict of interest.



Lucylastic -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 4:01:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63




Actually, I think they say "bollocks" over there. Bullocks was a department store.


You may well be right but this is the way I have seen them spell it.

The only times a brit ever said "bullocks" was in a thread in 2010 and myself and Kittensol had to explain what Bollocks were
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3130637
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3130544
In fact, bullocks only appears 48 times in the past four years in P&R
where as Bollocks appears more than 300 times, going back to JUST the 17th of november 1012.

so now you are lying.....again


Now
Once again Rich, as stirring the poo is all you seem to be able to do...please show where any brit has said, that the UK(GB, England, Scotland, or Wales and NI) is better off than the US GDP Mean or Median or any way whatsoever ?????
Please show us....enlighten us with your wisdom.
America has been known for a long time to be "wealthier" than the UK, go on, deny its true....
the UK suffered immensely in the economic crash in 2008. No one has claimed any different.
Yet the income gap or inequality is not looking so hot for the US,

As for the healthcare system, well... its not even in the same century.
SO your "hate" from the brits, has nothing to do with envy, that you think it does shows just how little you know, but a nice try, for satire.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 4:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

It's not entirely true that our system has "no exclusions", some treatments, and some drugs, are simply not available on the NHS.

There is an independent organization (independent of both Government and Healthcare providers) called NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) that advises on what drugs/treatments should be available.

NICE is a statutory organization, set up by act of parliament - so subject to oversight via the democratic process. Where NICE determines that a particular treatment should not be available, that decision can be challenged in court.

This is a significant contrast to privately funded systems where every insurer has a vested commercial interest in denying treatment, which let's face it is something of a conflict of interest.

Very true, crazy.

But... there aren't many drugs that are actually refused by NICE.
And, as you say, that decision can be overturned in a court.
The handful of drugs that are refused to be made available on the NHS tend to be those that are extremely expensive for the purpose and benefits the drug provides.
Yet strangely, the recent British Ebola victim that was flown back from Sierra Leone has received full treatment with an experimental drug from the US. So it seems that the NHS and NICE have approved the use of this drug AND the cost of flying the guy back to Britain for the treatment.




mnottertail -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 6:29:28 AM)

If you divide the number of chromosomes in venezualan fruit bat dna by the global oil supplies you get 'Paul is dead'. This explains a lot as well.



eulero83 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 6:35:12 AM)

FR

The chart in the first blog entry represents the disposable income, so after taxes are paid, this means that to have a fair comparsion, the value of the services provided by the public administration in the UK (like full coverage health care for example), has to be added to the uk incomes, as they are entitled to enjoy that good. It is quite unfair to compare incomes after a service is paid but not adding the value of those services back!
From this article I see the average cost for health premium and deductible in usa is more or less around the 5000$, I don't know if this gives a full coverage but for sake of conversation let's assume it does. This is the corrected chart with the health care insurance included:

[image]http://s11.postimg.org/4xxnsxsmb/ukvsus.png[/image]

as you can see the two chart are equal around the 50th percentile (aka the middleclass) considering only the health care, I suspect a simillar consideration can be done also in terms of education and other services.



GoddessManko -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 7:20:57 AM)

FR, our US millionaires have more money than entire industrialized (UK) nations COMBINED. The EU collectively when you use the currency conversion has slightly more than we do, so individual countries within the EU....yes. Also we got several hundred more billionaires under President Bush but simultaneously poverty increased by 18%. Economics has no gain or loss. There is only allocation. And we're talking microeconomics here (for the most part). :)
Your mathematics is rather fickle when the environmental factors are considered. The article tells only half the story. I'm guessing the writers are Friedman economists. :)



thursdays -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 10:49:44 AM)

[NM - Wrong acct]



BamaD -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 10:51:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Hope you are ready for the firestorm. You will be "politely" informed that this whole study is "bullocks"


Actually, I think they say "bollocks" over there. Bullocks was a department store.

Spot-on Zonie!!! [:D]

It is indeed "bollocks", not "bullocks".

NP its all BS



Zonie63 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 12:19:20 PM)

FR

I'm not sure if it even matters all that much as to who has the most wealth, but there are other factors to look at when measuring quality of life and comparing it between nations. Arizona is a relatively poor state, although I see we're 41st on the list provided in the OP's linked article, but it's also less expensive to live here than it is in other states. One can rent/buy a house with a yard here for less money than it would be to rent a shoebox apartment in NYC or Chicago or LA (and that doesn't even include a parking place).

I understand that London is one of the most expensive cities to live in, although I don't know how it is for the rest of the UK. I could be wrong, but my impression is that things tend to be more expensive over there, such as food, gas, housing.




Musicmystery -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 12:31:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Right, the more money government removes from an economy the better.


You didn't read the link, Sanity. We actually pay a bit more in taxes than they do, and they would still rank last among the states. I think it has to be some deeper systemic failure.

Shit. I've been through rural Mississippi. How bad off must those sad suckers be?


No great mystery I'm guessing -- the US has 5 times as many people, but ten times as many billionaires (47 vs. 492) and 20 times as many millionaires (500,000 vs. 9,630,000).

That's gonna bring the US average up.

Even in Mississippi, 2.1% of households are millionaires.

http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires.htm



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 12:40:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

FR

I'm not sure if it even matters all that much as to who has the most wealth, but there are other factors to look at when measuring quality of life and comparing it between nations. Arizona is a relatively poor state, although I see we're 41st on the list provided in the OP's linked article, but it's also less expensive to live here than it is in other states. One can rent/buy a house with a yard here for less money than it would be to rent a shoebox apartment in NYC or Chicago or LA (and that doesn't even include a parking place).

I understand that London is one of the most expensive cities to live in, although I don't know how it is for the rest of the UK. I could be wrong, but my impression is that things tend to be more expensive over there, such as food, gas, housing.



When I lived in the US for 8 months (NC & FL) I made a general comparison between the two countries.

On average, ignoring the high-flyers and millionaires, Americans earn anything from 2 to 4 times what we do doing the same types of jobs.
If you take out the exorbitant costs of US healthcare, it costs about half as much for living expenses (housing, gas, food, utilities etc) in the US than it does here and sometimes significantly less.
Take-outs and restaurant meals are half the price and twice the portions.
The service is impeccable and lighting fast compared to here - even if you compared the worst of the US with the best in the UK. Service here is absolutely attrocious!!

Examples -
Average Walmart/K-mart fast food joint - US: there and waiting before you arrived or ordered. UK: not unusual to wait 20-30 minutes before you see anyone to ask anything (fast food might be only 10 minutes tho).
Average price for a shoe-box 3-bed house - US: n/a (they don't make them that small). UK: £260,000 ($426,400). For what you pay over here you'd get a sprawling ranch/mansion in the US with decent land by comparison.
In London, You'd have trouble getting a dinky little 1-bed flat (apartment) for that money.
Petrol (gas) - US:$3~ish/gallon. UK: £6.47/gallon ($10.62/gallon).



tj444 -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 12:44:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Right, the more money government removes from an economy the better.


You didn't read the link, Sanity. We actually pay a bit more in taxes than they do, and they would still rank last among the states. I think it has to be some deeper systemic failure.

Shit. I've been through rural Mississippi. How bad off must those sad suckers be?


No great mystery I'm guessing -- the US has 5 times as many people, but ten times as many billionaires (47 vs. 492) and 20 times as many millionaires (500,000 vs. 9,630,000).

That's gonna bring the US average up.

Even in Mississippi, 2.1% of households are millionaires.

http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires.htm

I would say there would be a heck of a lot less billionaires in the US if the US govt didn't tax Americans on worldwide income.. many would likely take up residence elsewhere.. although some are now going to Puerto Rico to escape US taxes (while they can).. How many billionaires have left the UK, the EU, etc to save taxes, I wonder..



Musicmystery -> RE: This explains a lot (8/27/2014 1:09:01 PM)

Interesting fact -- generally, billionaires can afford to live here if they so choose.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875