NationStates

Were I still a resident of California, I wouldn't benefit from this. But the illegals probably will. This means higher taxes for those in California that do work. I hope the state gets flooded with illegals coming to "claim" these benefits and so much money is lost that it has to all be cancelled.

Saiwania wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:But wouldn't you rather die wrapped in a cloud of painkillers rather than screaming in agony?

Pain is a sensation you can get used to or deal with. It is not impossible.

I've spent the last 2.5 years in pain from my ankle. 2 weeks back I got an injection that removed most of it. You don't get used to it. Dealing with it really isn't fun.

Don't speak of that you don't know.

Saiwania wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:But wouldn't you rather die wrapped in a cloud of painkillers rather than screaming in agony?

Pain is a sensation you can get used to or deal with. It is not impossible.

Pain is a signal from your body that shit's going wrong in your body.

No, you don't get used to it, and people who don't feel pain rarely live past the age of 15 because they can't tell if something isn't working properly in their body or not.

Saiwania wrote:Were I still a resident of California, I wouldn't benefit from this. But the illegals probably will. This means higher taxes for those in California that do work. I hope the state gets flooded with illegals coming to "claim" these benefits and so much money is lost that it has to all be cancelled.

California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Tristainland wrote:

Saiwania wrote:Were I still a resident of California, I wouldn't benefit from this. But the illegals probably will. This means higher taxes for those in California that do work. I hope the state gets flooded with illegals coming to "claim" these benefits and so much money is lost that it has to all be cancelled.

California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Is that why the state grew from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest in the past few years? Because liberals just don't know how to run shit?

Tristainland wrote:

Saiwania wrote:Were I still a resident of California, I wouldn't benefit from this. But the illegals probably will. This means higher taxes for those in California that do work. I hope the state gets flooded with illegals coming to "claim" these benefits and so much money is lost that it has to all be cancelled.

California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Source?

Tristainland wrote:

Saiwania wrote:Were I still a resident of California, I wouldn't benefit from this. But the illegals probably will. This means higher taxes for those in California that do work. I hope the state gets flooded with illegals coming to "claim" these benefits and so much money is lost that it has to all be cancelled.

California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Those are some nice big claims you can source.

New haven america wrote:

Tristainland wrote:
California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Is that why the state grew from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest in the past few years? Because liberals just don't know how to run shit?

Do you honestly somehow not get 'We happened to luck into having a nice climate which attracts rich people, which attracts industry' is not somehow a ringing endorsement of liberal policy?

Salandriagado wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Not always. Also remember you can be efficient yet also ineffective.
One sized fits all is not always efficient and more rarely effective.

Why are you still pretending that "universal healthcare" means "one size fits all"?

The US primary education needs improvement in places. But is not an utter and complete disaster. In many places it is quite good.

Yes, it is.

And would you say Medicaid is an utter and complete disaster?

I don't know enough about it to comment.

Many EU countries have for for profit healthcare.

But also government-funded systems that work.

Also healthcare in the US also is a mixed system, consisting of for profit, non profits AND government administrated and supplied care.
So your knowledge of both the EU and US also needs work.

No, your ability to respond to what I actually said does.

Germany has a mixed system that is large decentralized in many aspects, states administer aspects of it. It works. In Canada healthcare is primarily administered at the Provincial level.

And this has precisely nothing to do with anything that I said.

And if you think rural Alaska and NYC have identical healthcare needs and concerns I am not sure what to say. You apparently do not understand the US at all.

Name a significant difference.

You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.
It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

"Alaska has been quite a story over the last few years. It's not like other states."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... care-costs

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Here's a challenge.

Wake up on a Monday morning and call a doctors surgery in the UK. Book an appointment.

Here's a challenge.

Do that in the US.

Short of going to the ER, most doctors won't get you in for any sort of appointment for weeks after you call, and once you get in, will schedule surgeries and the like for weeks after that.

Novus America wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Why are you still pretending that "universal healthcare" means "one size fits all"?



Yes, it is.



I don't know enough about it to comment.



But also government-funded systems that work.



No, your ability to respond to what I actually said does.



And this has precisely nothing to do with anything that I said.



Name a significant difference.

You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.

Because I never claimed such a thing. I asked you to defend your assertion that it can only be done in that way, which you haven't done.

It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

No, the issue is that private companies are the vast majority of it, which inflates prices beyond all reason.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

And the resulting fundamental difference in the healthcare requirements is what, exactly?

Novus America wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Why are you still pretending that "universal healthcare" means "one size fits all"?



Yes, it is.



I don't know enough about it to comment.



But also government-funded systems that work.



No, your ability to respond to what I actually said does.



And this has precisely nothing to do with anything that I said.



Name a significant difference.

You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.
It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

The NHS is dealt with in various areas. They are called Primary Trusts. Each has a budget and they spend said budget on what is most needed within their area of coverage. We do this in an area smaller than most of your states. I'm confident the US could manage it across your nation.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

New haven america wrote:Is that why the state grew from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest in the past few years? Because liberals just don't know how to run shit?

Do you honestly somehow not get 'We happened to luck into having a nice climate which attracts rich people, which attracts industry' is not somehow a ringing endorsement of liberal policy?

Well, under the Conservative Republican government the state went into debt and financial turmoil, housing prices got completely out of hand (A problem it still has), and shit just got worse until brown stepped in.

But of course, only Conservative Republicans can actually lead and do good things, anything Dems do is solely coincidental (Ain't that right, Reagan?) because they're to inept to actually do anything right. (I feel like I need to put an /s here just incase)

Conserative Morality wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Here's a challenge.

Wake up on a Monday morning and call a doctors surgery in the UK. Book an appointment.

Here's a challenge.

Do that in the US.

Short of going to the ER, most doctors won't get you in for any sort of appointment for weeks after you call, and once you get in, will schedule surgeries and the like for weeks after that.

More to the point: do that in the US, but tell them you don't intend to pay anything. Because that's what we're comparing to, here. If you don't like waiting for non-urgent things, just fill in the handy form on BUPA's website, pay them some single-digit percentage of the cost of equivalent cover in the US, and knock yourself out.

Novus America wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Why are you still pretending that "universal healthcare" means "one size fits all"?



Yes, it is.



I don't know enough about it to comment.



But also government-funded systems that work.



No, your ability to respond to what I actually said does.



And this has precisely nothing to do with anything that I said.



Name a significant difference.

You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.
It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

"Alaska has been quite a story over the last few years. It's not like other states."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... care-costs

Because they didn't claim to to begin with.

Conserative Morality wrote:Short of going to the ER, most doctors won't get you in for any sort of appointment for weeks after you call, and once you get in, will schedule surgeries and the like for weeks after that.

This is all the more reason to not be paying for health insurance and to not be going to the doctor for every little thing. Chances are, if anything is wrong with you- it'll go away if its not a big deal. If it doesn't, you weren't going to be cured anyways.

With insurance, you usually have to spend some rediculous amount like the first $5,000+ before an insurer will even pay anything for you. Most problems will be below that by design, so the net effect is that health insurance is just a money pit you don't benefit from unless you get a five to six figure problem paid for from having gone to the ER. There is no point in having it if you'll never be going to a medical center for any reason.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Here's a challenge.

Wake up on a Monday morning and call a doctors surgery in the UK. Book an appointment.

Pretty much no where on the planet are doctors that easy to get a hold of.

Unless it's an emergency you're going to have to wait a bit regardless of whether the system is private or universal.

Salandriagado wrote:

Novus America wrote:
You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.

Because I never claimed such a thing. I asked you to defend your assertion that it can only be done in that way, which you haven't done.

It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

No, the issue is that private companies are the vast majority of it, which inflates prices beyond all reason.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

And the resulting fundamental difference in the healthcare requirements is what, exactly?

Actually you are wrong. Private companies are not the vast majority of it. The government is nearly half of it.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-he ... ral-budget

"Alaska has been quite a story over the last few years. It's not like other states."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... care-costs

Given states have very different concerns and needs the the DC government has little understanding of, and Constitutional issues means it definitely should not be centralized in DC.

You think providing, running and funding float plane based ambulance service for a state with extreme low population density, and providing healthcare in a very low density environment is not different than doing it in a hyper dense mega city?

Novus America wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Because I never claimed such a thing. I asked you to defend your assertion that it can only be done in that way, which you haven't done.



No, the issue is that private companies are the vast majority of it, which inflates prices beyond all reason.



And the resulting fundamental difference in the healthcare requirements is what, exactly?

Actually you are wrong. Private companies are not the vast majority of it. The government is nearly half of it.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-he ... ral-budget

The vast majority of the provision, the vast majority of the profits, and service the vast majority of people. The government spending is just because of the fucking stupid setup where they pick up absurdly expensive emergency bills, rather than paying for preventative care.

"Alaska has been quite a story over the last few years. It's not like other states."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... care-costs

Given states have very different concerns and needs the the DC government has little understanding of, and Constitutional issues means it definitely should not be centralized in DC.

You think providing, running and funding float plane based ambulance service for a state with extreme low population density, and providing healthcare in a very low density environment is not different than doing it in a hyper dense mega city?

Answer the fucking question.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Novus America wrote:
You never explained why healthcare in the US cannot, and should not be administered primarily at a state or lower level.
It should be. Yes universal healthcare need not be one sized fits all, it can be decentralized like in Germany.

And the US does have government funded healthcare. The issue is some people who do not have other care are not eligible for a government funded system.
Which is an issue. But the issue is not that private companies are involved too.

And easy difference in rural Alaska. Population density.
Many people in rural Alaska live in tiny villages and homesteads, accessible only by float planes.

Float plane based transportation is quite different from NYC in which all the population can be relatively near a big hospital.

The NHS is dealt with in various areas. They are called Primary Trusts. Each has a budget and they spend said budget on what is most needed within their area of coverage. We do this in an area smaller than most of your states. I'm confident the US could manage it across your nation.

Oh we could implement a decentralized system administered locally.
The important thing to understand is states have tax and spending powers.
So if one state needs or wants to contribute more to Medicaid it can create its own taxes to do so.
States have their own money.

So a state administered system ensures states can raise additional funds via taxes.

It is very possible to ensure universal healthcare in the US, but running it all from DC would be horrible, and run into a variety of issues.

The best way would be to merge Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP into a single program that like Medicaid would be a joint state and federal program, with everyone not having insurance being eligible.

Salandriagado wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Actually you are wrong. Private companies are not the vast majority of it. The government is nearly half of it.
https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-he ... ral-budget

The vast majority of the provision, the vast majority of the profits, and service the vast majority of people. The government spending is just because of the fucking stupid setup where they pick up absurdly expensive emergency bills, rather than paying for preventative care.

"Alaska has been quite a story over the last few years. It's not like other states."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... care-costs

Given states have very different concerns and needs the the DC government has little understanding of, and Constitutional issues means it definitely should not be centralized in DC.

You think providing, running and funding float plane based ambulance service for a state with extreme low population density, and providing healthcare in a very low density environment is not different than doing it in a hyper dense mega city?

Answer the fucking question.

Actually a large number of the hospitals are owned by the federal or local government.
And other places like Germany also rely largely on the private sector.

Yes overuse of emergency rooms instead of preventive care is a problem, but could just as equally be a problem if the government owned more emergency rooms than it already does (which is a large number).

I answered your question. Also the article discusses some of the details.

When your population is so spread out, and transport so different, you need a different healthcare system then you do in New York City.

A few large hospitals can be accessed by the whole NYC population.

Largest hospitals will not work in rural Alaska. You need mobile doctors and a float plane based system to transport them and patients instead of large hospitals with conventional ambulances.

As just one example.

New haven america wrote:

Tristainland wrote:
California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Is that why the state grew from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest in the past few years? Because liberals just don't know how to run shit?

That is all thanks to the fact it is in the United States. If it seceded, California will quickly go down the toilet as most of it "exports" are nothing more than products from other states that are just passing through California to take advantage of its Pacific ports.

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I've transferred between a number of gp surgeries and I've never seen that, the amount of times that the answer has effectively been 'What are you doing in 10 days time?' is unreal.

That's because you're asking for appointments for things that aren't urgent. If you want your non-urgent things treating quicker, feel free to pay: it's probably less than £30/month.

I've started to overblow my symptoms when talking to the receptionist so I get put higher up the queue.

New haven america wrote:

Tristainland wrote:
California is already suffering a net loss in domestic migration as more Americans leave the state because of the rising taxes, rising cost of living, and increasing incompetence of the liberal state government.

Is that why the state grew from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest in the past few years? Because liberals just don't know how to run shit?

California has been consistently outperformed by Texas economically speaking, as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Which isn't really surprising tbh

Novus America wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
The vast majority of the provision, the vast majority of the profits, and service the vast majority of people. The government spending is just because of the fucking stupid setup where they pick up absurdly expensive emergency bills, rather than paying for preventative care.



Answer the fucking question.

Actually a large number of the hospitals are owned by the federal or local government.
And other places like Germany also rely largely on the private sector.

Not in remotely the same way. Stop being disingenuous.

Yes overuse of emergency rooms instead of preventive care is a problem, but could just as equally be a problem if the government owned more emergency rooms than it already does (which is a large number).

No, because it's literally compulsory, because the government will only pick up the bill for emergency treatment. This is a large part of the reason that shifting to a universal model would save the US government money.

I answered your question. Also the article discusses some of the details.

No you didn't.

When your population is so spread out, and transport so different, you need a different healthcare system then you do in New York City.

Different in what way? Name a fucking difference. This is not fucking difficult, unless you're just fucking lying.

A few large hospitals can be accessed by the whole NYC population.

But lots of small clinics for non-specialist stuff is better, regardless of population density.

Largest hospitals will not work in rural Alaska. You need mobile doctors and a float plane based system to transport them and patients instead of large hospitals with conventional ambulances.

So no significant difference, got it.