Trump slumps to a new low in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

System

Trump slumps to a new low in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

Immediately after the midterms last month former President Donald Trump made his formal announcement that he will be a candidate for 2024. As the betting chart shows he moved up shortly upwards but since then the story has all been downwards. This has been mostly down to the polling and the response to his “run again” plan.

Read the full story here

MattW

First

(How the %*&^$ did that happen? I've hardly been on PB for a couple of weeks.)

dixiedean

Second like Donald again.

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

kle4

And DeSantis mysteriously rules himself out in 3,2,1

Leon

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Sunil_Prasannan

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

Ecce homo qui est faba.

Driver

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

AlistairM

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

The reason for the focus on the US is that it comes from advocates for the NHS. They say, quiet rightly, "look how bad it is in the US". They categorically fail to mention other healthcare systems, particularly in Europe, because it doesn't fit their false narrative of "the NHS is perfect, it just needs more money".

dixiedean

Have recent experience of trying to get an emergency dental appointment. I phoned 111. Call your dentist at 9am when they open.
Can't. I'm teaching.
Well leave us your number and we'll call you back when they open at 9.
Can't. I'm teaching. We aren't allowed to have mobiles switched on in school.
The current system, and that of calling GP's at 8 am, advantages the non-working. And positively encourages taking time off work. Which advantages the better off who can afford it. Or those who have a senior enough position which allows you to take 20 minutes of trying to get through.
Once again, it's a system stacked against the working poor.

Gardenwalker

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

Leon

It is now a jolly sensible idea to stock up on vital medicines, if you are relying on such

williamglenn

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Gardenwalker

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

dixiedean

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

Casino_Royale

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Yes, there's no social insurance aspect to top up the private in the US except for the retired/elderly and veterans.

Medicaid doesn't seem to cut the mustard.

LostPassword

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

The proposals that we have had have involved more participation of private medical companies, co-payments and various other elements that look a lot like the US healthcare system.

If someone wants to draw together the best elements of continental European healthcare systems, explain clearly what would need to change from the status quo, and how, and what that would look like to an ordinary person, then be my guest.

Casino_Royale

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

Leon

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

dixiedean

Had a working day which ended with a stark naked child leaping from table to table around the classroom.
Am reassured to get home and discover Bob Dylan has been binge watching Coronation Street. Even after Ken Barlow heckled him at the Free Trade Hall, too.
All is well.

MaxPB

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

williamglenn

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

Casino_Royale

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

dixiedean

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

A high wage high cost economy has multiple benefits.
We've been aiming for precisely the opposite for 40 years plus.

Leon

It must be fun to be a headline writer, now, tho


"Crematoriums swamped as China braces for 1m Covid deaths

Crematoriums working overtime as hospitals race to expand ICUs"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crematoriums-swamped-as-china-braces-for-1m-covid-deaths-x293jl9ml

Driver

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

Well, yes. Given that the US system and NHS are at opposite ends of the spectrum, any change will "look like moving towards the US".

ohnotnow

Leon said:

It is now a jolly sensible idea to stock up on vital medicines, if you are relying on such

I'm not sure that on the off-chance I could get through to my GP - asking for 4x my prescription would get far.

Leon

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

Gardenwalker

Perhaps it is possible to transform National Insurance into something that pays for an insurance-based health service.

TimS

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

Jim_Miller

In the US, children can stay on their parent's insurance plans until the children turn 26: https://www.healthcare.gov/young-adults/children-under-26/

A person who loses a job with insurance, can usually extend their insurance while they are between jobs: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/cobra-continuation-health-coverage-consumer.pdf

williamglenn

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

He also accused the BBC of suppressing long covid.

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1412079610636996615

Stuartinromford

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

A high wage high cost economy has multiple benefits.
We've been aiming for precisely the opposite for 40 years plus.

Including- and this is the bit that perhaps we didn't notice for a loong while- the choices we made by voting. Public sector services have run on the basis of lots of (lower cost) people rather than capital spending so that fewer, more expensive, people can do things.

And that's not just about the power of the unions. We've decided we want more nurses, doctors, small class sizes. We've decided we don't want administrators, even if it means those doctors/nurses/teachers spending time doing their own admin.

TimS

Gardenwalker said:

Perhaps it is possible to transform National Insurance into something that pays for an insurance-based health service.

One of the big advantages of the NHS is / should be the lack of paperwork that comes with an insurance system. Free at the point of use means no financial stuff to think about. The other big advantage is centralised procurement although Europe seems to do OK on that too - it's the US where the decentralised nature of buying means the seller has all the pricing power, hence by far the highest cost per head of any health system.

I am sure there is a lot of efficiency we could build into the system - there always is in any big organisation - but I also suspect simple lack of money compared with per-head spending in other better systems is the biggest issue. Money can solve a lot of things.

Casino_Royale

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

I agree, but I suspect we're stuck with the NHS here.

Scott_xP

This is, in fact, Government policy...

TheScreamingEagles

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

You are such a drama Queen.

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, lock him up.

TheScreamingEagles

Off topic.

Smug bastard alert.

Just put on my out of office alert, not back at work until the 9th of January.

Casino_Royale

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Casino_Royale

dixiedean said:

Had a working day which ended with a stark naked child leaping from table to table around the classroom.
Am reassured to get home and discover Bob Dylan has been binge watching Coronation Street. Even after Ken Barlow heckled him at the Free Trade Hall, too.
All is well.

This is a strange post.

Leon

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

He also accused the BBC of suppressing long covid.

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1412079610636996615

Hmm. He doesn't quite say that

He definitely errs on the side of pessimism. But I'd say the spoils of the Covid War - so far - are evenly divided between the pessimists and the optimists. No one has won

eg at the outset the pessimists were right: "Fuck, this is bad, it's coming our way from China and Italy". The optimists - "it's just a flu" - were ludicrously wrong and cost lives and treasure

However last Xmas it was the optimists who were right: "Omicron is mild" - and thank God they prevailed

China? I dunno. But the early signs are grim. Let's hope the intense pain is brief

"As hospitals are full with patients people started getting treatment in their car with Saline bottles outside a Chinese hospital #ChinaCovid #ChinaCovidCases"

https://twitter.com/Ak_bh2047/status/1605206751066099712?s=20&t=zgblMk1q3gbSNNjuJaBTnA

LostPassword

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

Well, yes. Given that the US system and NHS are at opposite ends of the spectrum, any change will "look like moving towards the US".

Bit hard to criticize people for opposing making the health system more like the US health system on the basis of that not being the only alternative if, er, it is the only alternative.

rcs1000

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

The drug regime for HIV is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

TimS

Casino_Royale said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

I agree, but I suspect we're stuck with the NHS here.

There's also the issue that reforming the system into whatever other model would be massively costly, divisive, take years and probably be cocked up compared with the way other countries do it. It's not quite possible to say if it ain't broke don't fix it about the NHS, given it does indeed seem to be broken, but the most rapid improvement isn't going to come from a massive restructure. Tricky one.

Luckyguy1983

Gardenwalker said:

Perhaps it is possible to transform National Insurance into something that pays for an insurance-based health service.

It should all be paid for at the point of use I think. Could be via an NHS charge card where everyone has theoretically unlimited funds (though that wouldn't be without issues).

CorrectHorseBattery3

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

A high wage high cost economy has multiple benefits.
We've been aiming for precisely the opposite for 40 years plus.

Including- and this is the bit that perhaps we didn't notice for a loong while- the choices we made by voting. Public sector services have run on the basis of lots of (lower cost) people rather than capital spending so that fewer, more expensive, people can do things.

And that's not just about the power of the unions. We've decided we want more nurses, doctors, small class sizes. We've decided we don't want administrators, even if it means those doctors/nurses/teachers spending time doing their own admin.

Although that does somewhat fall down given that we don't have more nurses, doctors, or small class sizes, as well as insufficient administrators and most of those being naff.

Gardenwalker

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Had a working day which ended with a stark naked child leaping from table to table around the classroom.
Am reassured to get home and discover Bob Dylan has been binge watching Coronation Street. Even after Ken Barlow heckled him at the Free Trade Hall, too.
All is well.

This is a strange post.

I missed the original post, and so I did a google.

For true Bob Dylan fans and sometime Corrie watchers, it is wonderful and indeed reassuring news.

Leon

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

Gardenwalker

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

TimS

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

He also accused the BBC of suppressing long covid.

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1412079610636996615

Hmm. He doesn't quite say that

He definitely errs on the side of pessimism. But I'd say the spoils of the Covid War - so far - are evenly divided between the pessimists and the optimists. No one has won

eg at the outset the pessimists were right: "Fuck, this is bad, it's coming our way from China and Italy". The optimists - "it's just a flu" - were ludicrously wrong and cost lives and treasure

However last Xmas it was the optimists who were right: "Omicron is mild" - and thank God they prevailed

China? I dunno. But the early signs are grim. Let's hope the intense pain is brief

"As hospitals are full with patients people started getting treatment in their car with Saline bottles outside a Chinese hospital #ChinaCovid #ChinaCovidCases"

https://twitter.com/Ak_bh2047/status/1605206751066099712?s=20&t=zgblMk1q3gbSNNjuJaBTnA

So far the worst example has been Peru, followed by Brazil. Largely uncontrolled spread with low vaccination rates and an immune naive population. I would guess China will do somewhat better than those two but worse than a lot of the higher vaxxed countries.

Driver

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

Well, yes. Given that the US system and NHS are at opposite ends of the spectrum, any change will "look like moving towards the US".

Bit hard to criticize people for opposing making the health system more like the US health system on the basis of that not being the only alternative if, er, it is the only alternative.

Perhaps you missed my use of the word "spectrum"?

Driver

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

The drug regime for HIV is not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

It's mostly two pills once a day. It used to be one pill once a day, but I think NICE decided that one was too expensive.

LostPassword

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

He seems to be a loon:

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1470747777894342661

Hypothetically, if HIV guaranteed complete immunity to Covid (including all current variants, and future ones), I'd pick HIV.

I'm not sure he's a loon, at all. He has strident opinions, he also seems notably well informed - this is his job: biorisk

The HIV thing is eccentric but arguable. If you believe Covid will be with us forever and will always mutate, quite possibly into something nastier, then having (now treatable) HIV would be better than getting a lethal and untreatable dose of Covid

He also accused the BBC of suppressing long covid.

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1412079610636996615

Hmm. He doesn't quite say that

He definitely errs on the side of pessimism. But I'd say the spoils of the Covid War - so far - are evenly divided between the pessimists and the optimists. No one has won

eg at the outset the pessimists were right: "Fuck, this is bad, it's coming our way from China and Italy". The optimists - "it's just a flu" - were ludicrously wrong and cost lives and treasure

However last Xmas it was the optimists who were right: "Omicron is mild" - and thank God they prevailed

China? I dunno. But the early signs are grim. Let's hope the intense pain is brief

"As hospitals are full with patients people started getting treatment in their car with Saline bottles outside a Chinese hospital #ChinaCovid #ChinaCovidCases"

https://twitter.com/Ak_bh2047/status/1605206751066099712?s=20&t=zgblMk1q3gbSNNjuJaBTnA

If Omicron were mild then China wouldn't have a problem. What saved us was that Omicron evaded vaccine-acquired immunity enough to infect people, but not so much that it made them seriously ill.

It was vaccination that saved us, not any inherent mildness of the variant. And that's why we should not be too concerned about new variants from China. Vaccination is still very likely to protect us against serious illness.

Supply chain disruption, and consequent inflation, isn't going to be much fun though.

williamglenn

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

Driver

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour is the only party that lefties will tolerate introducing privatisation, that's for sure.

dixiedean

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Had a working day which ended with a stark naked child leaping from table to table around the classroom.
Am reassured to get home and discover Bob Dylan has been binge watching Coronation Street. Even after Ken Barlow heckled him at the Free Trade Hall, too.
All is well.

This is a strange post.

I missed the original post, and so I did a google.

For true Bob Dylan fans and sometime Corrie watchers, it is wonderful and indeed reassuring news.

Yep. It's so Christmassy somehow.

Gets better. He's been offered a part singing karaoke with Ken and Rita in the Rovers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/20/bob-dylan-walk-on-role-coronation-street-fan/

How does it feel?
Exquisite.

Stuartinromford

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

A high wage high cost economy has multiple benefits.
We've been aiming for precisely the opposite for 40 years plus.

Including- and this is the bit that perhaps we didn't notice for a loong while- the choices we made by voting. Public sector services have run on the basis of lots of (lower cost) people rather than capital spending so that fewer, more expensive, people can do things.

And that's not just about the power of the unions. We've decided we want more nurses, doctors, small class sizes. We've decided we don't want administrators, even if it means those doctors/nurses/teachers spending time doing their own admin.

Although that does somewhat fall down given that we don't have more nurses, doctors, or small class sizes, as well as insufficient administrators and most of those being naff.

There is that. We've now reached the point where Wile E. Coyote is starting to notice that he is running across a canyon. But it looked great while it lasted.

Gardenwalker

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

My new landlords, who own the whole brownstone and live in the bottom two floors, are Jewish and about 100 years old.

In fact, the husband was born in Berlin and fled to New York by way of London just before kristalnacht.

Anyway, they were introduced to shepherds pie by a “British friend” and make their own variant which adds a layer of creamed spinach.

I haven’t tried it yet, but I thought it sounded pretty good.

TimS

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

The UK left and right generally take their terms of reference on:

- Healthcare
- Policing and race relations
- Gender and LGBT rights
- Abortion
- Foreign policy
- Monetary policy

from the US.

And their terms of reference on:

- Infrastructure and transport
- Financial regulation
- Food and farming
- Migration
- Education
- Taxation

from Europe.

TimS

Driver said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour is the only party that lefties will tolerate introducing privatisation, that's for sure.

There's something in that. For the same reason I expect it'll be the Tories that finally take us back into the EU.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

If I use British shepherds, it just doesn't taste the same.

Gardenwalker

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

dixiedean said:

Had a working day which ended with a stark naked child leaping from table to table around the classroom.
Am reassured to get home and discover Bob Dylan has been binge watching Coronation Street. Even after Ken Barlow heckled him at the Free Trade Hall, too.
All is well.

This is a strange post.

I missed the original post, and so I did a google.

For true Bob Dylan fans and sometime Corrie watchers, it is wonderful and indeed reassuring news.

Yep. It's so Christmassy somehow.

Gets better. He's been offered a part singing karaoke with Ken and Rita in the Rovers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/20/bob-dylan-walk-on-role-coronation-street-fan/

How does it feel?
Exquisite.

Oh god, I hope this happens.
It could actually cause a rupture in the space-time continuum such that Covid and Austerity and Trump and Brexit never happened.

LostPassword

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

Well, yes. Given that the US system and NHS are at opposite ends of the spectrum, any change will "look like moving towards the US".

Bit hard to criticize people for opposing making the health system more like the US health system on the basis of that not being the only alternative if, er, it is the only alternative.

Perhaps you missed my use of the word "spectrum"?

The suggestion from other posters is that healthcare systems do not lie on a 1-d line, but that you can move in a direction orthogonal to the NHS-US axis towards a better, different system. You appear to disagree.

All I'm saying is that if other posters have alternatives that are orthogonal then they need to do better to explain them.

Driver

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

No-one has ever set out a clear plan for what a better alternative would look like, that doesn't look like moving towards the US.

Well, yes. Given that the US system and NHS are at opposite ends of the spectrum, any change will "look like moving towards the US".

Bit hard to criticize people for opposing making the health system more like the US health system on the basis of that not being the only alternative if, er, it is the only alternative.

Perhaps you missed my use of the word "spectrum"?

The suggestion from other posters is that healthcare systems do not lie on a 1-d line, but that you can move in a direction orthogonal to the NHS-US axis towards a better, different system. You appear to disagree.

All I'm saying is that if other posters have alternatives that are orthogonal then they need to do better to explain them.

How much goes through the state is certainly one dimension. Whilst there may be others this is the one that I tend to focus on because that's what tends to be politically important.

JosiasJessop

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

"China was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons."

Without meaning to further your monomaniacal belief, the above could mean two things: 1) They were investigating them as potential weapons to be used against others (and with little other use), or 2) They were investigating them because they were afraid other might weaponise the diseases, and look at what it meant.

The second is a much more interesting one to consider, as it covers both a defence against such weapons, as well as what the weapons might be.

But I reckon it's all tinfoilhattery anyway. As ever, you go for the DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!

There have been several times in the last ew decades (known thanks to increased surveillance) that there might have been a worldwide pandemic: MERS or H1N1 being examples. We got lucky then. We were unlucky with Covid.

JosiasJessop

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour had 13 years to reform the NHS. And did not do so, beyond fiddling around the edges.

What makes you think Labour would be willing to take on the unions and other vested interests that would be required to reform the NHS?

Throwing more money at the problem is *not* a solution on its own.

HYUFD

Morning Consult has it Trump 48% De Santis 33% Pence 8% in their new GOP primary poll.

Biden leads Trump 43% to 41% and DeSantis 43% to 42%

https://morningconsult.com/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker/

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour had 13 years to reform the NHS. And did not do so, beyond fiddling around the edges.

What makes you think Labour would be willing to take on the unions and other vested interests that would be required to reform the NHS?

Throwing more money at the problem is *not* a solution on its own.

"Fiddling around the edges"? Excuse my hollow laugh.

New Labour's embracing of PFI was as outrageous a system as anything the Tories have done in their tenure since.

And is still a financial disaster zone.

Malmesbury

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

… …

Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland

Don't let facts get in the way of racism,

@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling

The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism

Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic

Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.

No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.

Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.

And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame

Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane

On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.

Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist

Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it

I suspect he isn't.
I suspect you are.

Clear enough?

I'm actually in agreement with TUD here.

Because Stuart isn't a racist. There's no suggestion he despises people based on skin colour.

He's a xenophobe. He hates everyone except Scots and Swedes (and I'm not always sure about the latter). He especially hates the English, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't.

And it does affect his judgement really badly and lead him to make bizarre statements, such as claiming Scotland provides England with power or water, or that it's full of oil that's being stolen, or that English power bills are six times that of Europe, or that Britain uses more energy than Sweden.

Which is why any time he posts something that is even tangentially about England in particular, assume he's lying or wrong because he invariably is.

So race is just skin colour? How about anti-Semitism against Ashkenazi Jews, is that therefore not racism? The pale Jews who died in Belsen, were they not the victims of racism?

Absurd

If you despise someone simply because of their nationality/culture/origin, that is a species of racism. Despising people because of their skin pigmentation is ANOTHER species of racism

Official definitions of racism, used in the U.K. and elsewhere include prejudice against nationality.

So, if someone abuses a Polish man for being Polish, that is counted as a racism.

I wonder how "coloured" you have to be for @ydoethur before you can be an acceptable victim of racism? Mahogany brown? Middle beige? Ecru? Pale tan?

Perhaps he has an actual colour chart

In your case, of course, they just have to be sort of lightly tanned.

Daft definition if Malmesbury is correct though, and merely proves governments are incapable of using language properly.

It makes sense because otherwise you’d have people saying anti-semitism isn’t racist, therefore not bad. It also makes sense because the same kind of hate is involved, and often the usual suspects are doing it.

The classic of that genre is to look at the side hobbies of the KKK…

Generally the modern definition for legal stuff is ethnic group, religion or nationality.

So a hating on a white Muslim is still racist.

IIRC people have gone to prison as commuting racist assault for attacking people for being Polish.

Part of the problem is that most definitions of race were made up by racists and are quite racist and stupid.

I once nearly got a bunch of lawyers to reuse the definition of race from the Nuremberg Laws - they were trying to create a law to ban the use of the N word, without it applying to those engaged in Hip Hop etc. It was tooooo tempting not to take the shot…..

Stuartinromford

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour had 13 years to reform the NHS. And did not do so, beyond fiddling around the edges.

What makes you think Labour would be willing to take on the unions and other vested interests that would be required to reform the NHS?

Throwing more money at the problem is *not* a solution on its own.

Fairly or not, Conservatives aren't trusted with this sort of thing- it's going to need a Nixon/China movement. And whilst more money is not a sufficient answer, it's probably a necessary part of the answer- if only because reorganisations on working systems are expensive.

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

If I use British shepherds, it just doesn't taste the same.

Are you one of those nativityists?

SeaShantyIrish2

Way Off Topic

Does anyone on here have a clue WHY it is that Elon Musk is apparently bent on destroying Twitter?

malcolmg

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

Ecce homo qui est faba.

Amo, amas, amat

ydoethur

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Way Off Topic

Does anyone on here have a clue WHY it is that Elon Musk is apparently bent on destroying Twitter?

I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that it's not deliberate, rather an accident based on his being an arrogant twit.

TheKitchenCabinet

HYUFD said:

Morning Consult has it Trump 48% De Santis 33% Pence 8% in their new GOP primary poll.

Biden leads Trump 43% to 41% and DeSantis 43% to 42%

https://morningconsult.com/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker/

In the latest Harvard-Harris poll, Trump was up 5 v Biden. It may be shit but the whole "Trump is done" mantra seems a bit overdone.

MaxPB

Gardenwalker said:

Perhaps it is possible to transform National Insurance into something that pays for an insurance-based health service.

Then how do people who don't pay NI get healthcare?

malcolmg

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

… …

Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland

Don't let facts get in the way of racism,

@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling

The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism

Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic

Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.

No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.

Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.

And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame

Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane

On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.

Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist

Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it

I suspect he isn't.
I suspect you are.

Clear enough?

I'm actually in agreement with TUD here.

Because Stuart isn't a racist. There's no suggestion he despises people based on skin colour.

He's a xenophobe. He hates everyone except Scots and Swedes (and I'm not always sure about the latter). He especially hates the English, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't.

And it does affect his judgement really badly and lead him to make bizarre statements, such as claiming Scotland provides England with power or water, or that it's full of oil that's being stolen, or that English power bills are six times that of Europe, or that Britain uses more energy than Sweden.

Which is why any time he posts something that is even tangentially about England in particular, assume he's lying or wrong because he invariably is.

So race is just skin colour? How about anti-Semitism against Ashkenazi Jews, is that therefore not racism? The pale Jews who died in Belsen, were they not the victims of racism?

Absurd

If you despise someone simply because of their nationality/culture/origin, that is a species of racism. Despising people because of their skin pigmentation is ANOTHER species of racism

Official definitions of racism, used in the U.K. and elsewhere include prejudice against nationality.

So, if someone abuses a Polish man for being Polish, that is counted as a racism.

I wonder how "coloured" you have to be for @ydoethur before you can be an acceptable victim of racism? Mahogany brown? Middle beige? Ecru? Pale tan?

Perhaps he has an actual colour chart

In your case, of course, they just have to be sort of lightly tanned.

Daft definition if Malmesbury is correct though, and merely proves governments are incapable of using language properly.

It makes sense because otherwise you’d have people saying anti-semitism isn’t racist, therefore not bad. It also makes sense because the same kind of hate is involved, and often the usual suspects are doing it.

The classic of that genre is to look at the side hobbies of the KKK…

Generally the modern definition for legal stuff is ethnic group, religion or nationality.

So a hating on a white Muslim is still racist.

IIRC people have gone to prison as commuting racist assault for attacking people for being Polish.

Part of the problem is that most definitions of race were made up by racists and are quite racist and stupid.

I once nearly got a bunch of lawyers to reuse the definition of race from the Nuremberg Laws - they were trying to create a law to ban the use of the N word, without it applying to those engaged in Hip Hop etc. It was tooooo tempting not to take the shot…..

One thing is certain Dougseal is the arsehole of arseholes, a whining little cur. A stereotypical racist himself trying to gaslight others.

SeaShantyIrish2

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

If I use British shepherds, it just doesn't taste the same.

So THAT's the secret ingredient!

Any person preference between, say, North Riding sheep-shaggers compared with Cornwall crook-lovers?

TheKitchenCabinet

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

"China was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons."

Without meaning to further your monomaniacal belief, the above could mean two things: 1) They were investigating them as potential weapons to be used against others (and with little other use), or 2) They were investigating them because they were afraid other might weaponise the diseases, and look at what it meant.

The second is a much more interesting one to consider, as it covers both a defence against such weapons, as well as what the weapons might be.

But I reckon it's all tinfoilhattery anyway. As ever, you go for the DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!

There have been several times in the last ew decades (known thanks to increased surveillance) that there might have been a worldwide pandemic: MERS or H1N1 being examples. We got lucky then. We were unlucky with Covid.

On a balance of probabilities, the virus came from the Wuhan lab - the location of the outbreak, the still lack of any tracing back to a credible source zero and, maybe most of all, the reactions of Western Governments to shutting down the world, which suggests they knew - or feared - this could potentially be very dangerous because it had man-made properties.

It's as much tinfoil-hattery to shout out we shouldn't investigate the possibility it came from a lab as to shout out it 100% did. Same sort of irrationality, same sort of maniacal obsession not to question.

Cookie

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

Really? By the standards of this board, I'm on the right - and certainly have to truck with affected poofery - and I rather like moussaka. (Rarely make it through - aubergines are a lot more hassle than mashed potato). Do I need to take a long hard look at myself?

On a similar subject, about this time of year, I'm always tempted by Baileys (or a non-branded cheaper alternative). This year I cracked. It's delicious. Again, a long hard look at myself needed? I'll be going to the theatre next.

Stuartinromford

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Perhaps it is possible to transform National Insurance into something that pays for an insurance-based health service.

Then how do people who don't pay NI get healthcare?

Right now, because they're the only voters the government can rely on. And a decade ago, it didn't seem such a problem.

(Somehow, a future government will tap into that, because they will have no choice.)

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

dixiedean said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

The Swiss, as with a lot of things, seem to have it figured out. Mandatory insurance, people can pick plans which give high rebates for non-usage so younger people go for those, heavy government subsidies for the temporarily unemployed, sick and other people unable to work. No one in Switzerland goes without healthcare and while the cost of healthcare is high, so are the wages and in proportion they probably spend similarly to here.

When my wife needed an elective procedure done her insurance covered it in full and she was seen to within a couple of weeks by the specialist, operation done and back to work 2 days after. In the UK that would have taken 3-4 months of waiting and back and forth between departments on the NHS and in that time she was struggling to work so would have probably been on sick leave.

It's an insurance first based system so I'm sure it would be attacked as unfair but it works very well and it's extremely efficient.

A high wage high cost economy has multiple benefits.
We've been aiming for precisely the opposite for 40 years plus.

Including- and this is the bit that perhaps we didn't notice for a loong while- the choices we made by voting. Public sector services have run on the basis of lots of (lower cost) people rather than capital spending so that fewer, more expensive, people can do things.

And that's not just about the power of the unions. We've decided we want more nurses, doctors, small class sizes. We've decided we don't want administrators, even if it means those doctors/nurses/teachers spending time doing their own admin.

Although that does somewhat fall down given that we don't have more nurses, doctors, or small class sizes, as well as insufficient administrators and most of those being naff.

Yet on radio today they said we ( England ) had many more doctors, nurses and ambulance staff than pre covid yet were doing far less treatment, due partly to 2000 serious covid patients and 14000 people who they cannot get social care for so have to keep them in hospital.

TheKitchenCabinet

malcolmg said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

… …

Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland

Don't let facts get in the way of racism,

@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling

The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism

Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic

Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.

No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.

Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.

And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame

Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane

On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.

Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist

Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it

I suspect he isn't.
I suspect you are.

Clear enough?

I'm actually in agreement with TUD here.

Because Stuart isn't a racist. There's no suggestion he despises people based on skin colour.

He's a xenophobe. He hates everyone except Scots and Swedes (and I'm not always sure about the latter). He especially hates the English, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't.

And it does affect his judgement really badly and lead him to make bizarre statements, such as claiming Scotland provides England with power or water, or that it's full of oil that's being stolen, or that English power bills are six times that of Europe, or that Britain uses more energy than Sweden.

Which is why any time he posts something that is even tangentially about England in particular, assume he's lying or wrong because he invariably is.

So race is just skin colour? How about anti-Semitism against Ashkenazi Jews, is that therefore not racism? The pale Jews who died in Belsen, were they not the victims of racism?

Absurd

If you despise someone simply because of their nationality/culture/origin, that is a species of racism. Despising people because of their skin pigmentation is ANOTHER species of racism

Official definitions of racism, used in the U.K. and elsewhere include prejudice against nationality.

So, if someone abuses a Polish man for being Polish, that is counted as a racism.

I wonder how "coloured" you have to be for @ydoethur before you can be an acceptable victim of racism? Mahogany brown? Middle beige? Ecru? Pale tan?

Perhaps he has an actual colour chart

In your case, of course, they just have to be sort of lightly tanned.

Daft definition if Malmesbury is correct though, and merely proves governments are incapable of using language properly.

It makes sense because otherwise you’d have people saying anti-semitism isn’t racist, therefore not bad. It also makes sense because the same kind of hate is involved, and often the usual suspects are doing it.

The classic of that genre is to look at the side hobbies of the KKK…

Generally the modern definition for legal stuff is ethnic group, religion or nationality.

So a hating on a white Muslim is still racist.

IIRC people have gone to prison as commuting racist assault for attacking people for being Polish.

Part of the problem is that most definitions of race were made up by racists and are quite racist and stupid.

I once nearly got a bunch of lawyers to reuse the definition of race from the Nuremberg Laws - they were trying to create a law to ban the use of the N word, without it applying to those engaged in Hip Hop etc. It was tooooo tempting not to take the shot…..

One thing is certain Dougseal is the arsehole of arseholes, a whining little cur. A stereotypical racist himself trying to gaslight others.

Hello Malc, all good? Great to see you in fighting form.

JosiasJessop

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Way Off Topic

Does anyone on here have a clue WHY it is that Elon Musk is apparently bent on destroying Twitter?

My working hypothesis (which might well be wrong) is he realises that it is doomed, and wants 'someone else' to blame for it. By allying himself with the right, there will be lots of people who will buy into 'it was the government' that caused it to fail. Also, it might open new markets for Tesla cars amongst the non-environmental movement - and everyone who can afford a Tesla might already have considered it.

This removing from himself the stain of failure - at least in the eyes of the six-fingered hood-wearers.

Malmesbury

malcolmg said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

… …

Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland

Don't let facts get in the way of racism,

@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling

The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism

Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic

Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.

No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.

Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.

And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame

Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane

On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.

Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist

Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it

I suspect he isn't.
I suspect you are.

Clear enough?

I'm actually in agreement with TUD here.

Because Stuart isn't a racist. There's no suggestion he despises people based on skin colour.

He's a xenophobe. He hates everyone except Scots and Swedes (and I'm not always sure about the latter). He especially hates the English, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't.

And it does affect his judgement really badly and lead him to make bizarre statements, such as claiming Scotland provides England with power or water, or that it's full of oil that's being stolen, or that English power bills are six times that of Europe, or that Britain uses more energy than Sweden.

Which is why any time he posts something that is even tangentially about England in particular, assume he's lying or wrong because he invariably is.

So race is just skin colour? How about anti-Semitism against Ashkenazi Jews, is that therefore not racism? The pale Jews who died in Belsen, were they not the victims of racism?

Absurd

If you despise someone simply because of their nationality/culture/origin, that is a species of racism. Despising people because of their skin pigmentation is ANOTHER species of racism

Official definitions of racism, used in the U.K. and elsewhere include prejudice against nationality.

So, if someone abuses a Polish man for being Polish, that is counted as a racism.

I wonder how "coloured" you have to be for @ydoethur before you can be an acceptable victim of racism? Mahogany brown? Middle beige? Ecru? Pale tan?

Perhaps he has an actual colour chart

In your case, of course, they just have to be sort of lightly tanned.

Daft definition if Malmesbury is correct though, and merely proves governments are incapable of using language properly.

It makes sense because otherwise you’d have people saying anti-semitism isn’t racist, therefore not bad. It also makes sense because the same kind of hate is involved, and often the usual suspects are doing it.

The classic of that genre is to look at the side hobbies of the KKK…

Generally the modern definition for legal stuff is ethnic group, religion or nationality.

So a hating on a white Muslim is still racist.

IIRC people have gone to prison as commuting racist assault for attacking people for being Polish.

Part of the problem is that most definitions of race were made up by racists and are quite racist and stupid.

I once nearly got a bunch of lawyers to reuse the definition of race from the Nuremberg Laws - they were trying to create a law to ban the use of the N word, without it applying to those engaged in Hip Hop etc. It was tooooo tempting not to take the shot…..

One thing is certain Dougseal is the arsehole of arseholes, a whining little cur. A stereotypical racist himself trying to gaslight others.

3/10 - sloppy, non-lyrical insults of no especial rarity or style.

Trying. Still trying.

Stuartinromford

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

Really? By the standards of this board, I'm on the right - and certainly have to truck with affected poofery - and I rather like moussaka. (Rarely make it through - aubergines are a lot more hassle than mashed potato). Do I need to take a long hard look at myself?

On a similar subject, about this time of year, I'm always tempted by Baileys (or a non-branded cheaper alternative). This year I cracked. It's delicious. Again, a long hard look at myself needed? I'll be going to the theatre next.

I think theatre is ok, as long as it isn't musicals.

Cookie

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Way Off Topic

Does anyone on here have a clue WHY it is that Elon Musk is apparently bent on destroying Twitter?

Because it's a sewer?

TheKitchenCabinet

Cookie said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

Really? By the standards of this board, I'm on the right - and certainly have to truck with affected poofery - and I rather like moussaka. (Rarely make it through - aubergines are a lot more hassle than mashed potato). Do I need to take a long hard look at myself?

On a similar subject, about this time of year, I'm always tempted by Baileys (or a non-branded cheaper alternative). This year I cracked. It's delicious. Again, a long hard look at myself needed? I'll be going to the theatre next.

I'm centre-right and I bought a flowery shirt as something different, to which my parents said "don't go out in that, it's too feminine" (and they live in Manchester). Should I do a left winger test? Or some other test whatsoever...?

Malmesbury

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

If I use British shepherds, it just doesn't taste the same.

So THAT's the secret ingredient!

Any person preference between, say, North Riding sheep-shaggers compared with Cornwall crook-lovers?

To get the classic flavour you need to include the dog as well.

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

The whole Swiss healthcare system is privatised and for profit, from insurers all the way down to immunisation providers for children. The reform would require junking the whole system, privatising healthcare entirely and making purchasing health insurance mandatory the same as car insurance.

Neither party is going to do that.

malcolmg

TheKitchenCabinet said:

malcolmg said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

… …

Your daily reminder that the man who waltzed off with the Parthenon marbles, on behalf of the British Empire, was Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin and 11th Earl of Kincardine, born in Broomhall, Fife, Scotland

Don't let facts get in the way of racism,

@StuartDickson seems to be the only example of a pure, unabashed racist on PB. He fears, loathes and despises the English, simply because they are English, and it applies to all English people. He’s really not a great advert for Scottish Nationalism, yet his Nat friends all tolerate and encourage him, which is rather telling

The strange thing is, if you can somehow force Mr Dickson onto other subjects, he’s often quite interesting. The summer habits of the Swedes. Uses for snowberries. Involuntary nudism

Yet, also a racist. And unapologetic

Don't think he's ever unapologetically bigged up Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson or Putin, or called for the internment of Muslims.

No one is saying he has. He has, however, openly stated his hatred of England and English people. Not all racists are the same.

Yep, but I'm saying someone has and all the HE DID A ANTI ENGLISH RAYZISM!!! types on PB don't give a fuck.

And yet again you are moved to defend your fellow Nat, come what may, and without a blink of shame

Perhaps because you share Stuart Dickson’s anti-English racism? But you are more domesticated, so you don’t let it show. He is feral. Gone to savagery in the wilds of Skane

On this occasion seems more like TUD is attacking you, rather than actually defending SD, who is obviously another idiot.

Well, I’ve just asked TUD if @StuartDickson is actually a racist. He seems close to admitting it, finally. The big question of the morning. Is @StuartDickson a racist

Let’s see what @Theuniondivvie says. Whether he can - belatedly - admit it

I suspect he isn't.
I suspect you are.

Clear enough?

I'm actually in agreement with TUD here.

Because Stuart isn't a racist. There's no suggestion he despises people based on skin colour.

He's a xenophobe. He hates everyone except Scots and Swedes (and I'm not always sure about the latter). He especially hates the English, and can't understand why everyone else doesn't.

And it does affect his judgement really badly and lead him to make bizarre statements, such as claiming Scotland provides England with power or water, or that it's full of oil that's being stolen, or that English power bills are six times that of Europe, or that Britain uses more energy than Sweden.

Which is why any time he posts something that is even tangentially about England in particular, assume he's lying or wrong because he invariably is.

So race is just skin colour? How about anti-Semitism against Ashkenazi Jews, is that therefore not racism? The pale Jews who died in Belsen, were they not the victims of racism?

Absurd

If you despise someone simply because of their nationality/culture/origin, that is a species of racism. Despising people because of their skin pigmentation is ANOTHER species of racism

Official definitions of racism, used in the U.K. and elsewhere include prejudice against nationality.

So, if someone abuses a Polish man for being Polish, that is counted as a racism.

I wonder how "coloured" you have to be for @ydoethur before you can be an acceptable victim of racism? Mahogany brown? Middle beige? Ecru? Pale tan?

Perhaps he has an actual colour chart

In your case, of course, they just have to be sort of lightly tanned.

Daft definition if Malmesbury is correct though, and merely proves governments are incapable of using language properly.

It makes sense because otherwise you’d have people saying anti-semitism isn’t racist, therefore not bad. It also makes sense because the same kind of hate is involved, and often the usual suspects are doing it.

The classic of that genre is to look at the side hobbies of the KKK…

Generally the modern definition for legal stuff is ethnic group, religion or nationality.

So a hating on a white Muslim is still racist.

IIRC people have gone to prison as commuting racist assault for attacking people for being Polish.

Part of the problem is that most definitions of race were made up by racists and are quite racist and stupid.

I once nearly got a bunch of lawyers to reuse the definition of race from the Nuremberg Laws - they were trying to create a law to ban the use of the N word, without it applying to those engaged in Hip Hop etc. It was tooooo tempting not to take the shot…..

One thing is certain Dougseal is the arsehole of arseholes, a whining little cur. A stereotypical racist himself trying to gaslight others.

Hello Malc, all good? Great to see you in fighting form.

Howdy, fit and raring to go.

JosiasJessop

TheKitchenCabinet said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

"China was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons."

Without meaning to further your monomaniacal belief, the above could mean two things: 1) They were investigating them as potential weapons to be used against others (and with little other use), or 2) They were investigating them because they were afraid other might weaponise the diseases, and look at what it meant.

The second is a much more interesting one to consider, as it covers both a defence against such weapons, as well as what the weapons might be.

But I reckon it's all tinfoilhattery anyway. As ever, you go for the DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!

There have been several times in the last ew decades (known thanks to increased surveillance) that there might have been a worldwide pandemic: MERS or H1N1 being examples. We got lucky then. We were unlucky with Covid.

On a balance of probabilities, the virus came from the Wuhan lab - the location of the outbreak, the still lack of any tracing back to a credible source zero and, maybe most of all, the reactions of Western Governments to shutting down the world, which suggests they knew - or feared - this could potentially be very dangerous because it had man-made properties.

It's as much tinfoil-hattery to shout out we shouldn't investigate the possibility it came from a lab as to shout out it 100% did. Same sort of irrationality, same sort of maniacal obsession not to question.

I have no certainty where it originated, and sadly, due to China's actions in the early days, we probably never will (there is a chance the central Chinese government never will, either). But the most DRAMATIC thing is that it was manmade and released from the lab, which is why Leon obsesses with the possibility over all others.

"the reactions of Western Governments to shutting down the world, which suggests they knew - or feared - this could potentially be very dangerous because it had man-made properties."

This is the sort of thing that makes me thing you are sitting in your underpants wearing a tinfoil hat. The lockdowns in the west came (with hindsight) late, and as a result of what we were seeing in the countries that got it earlier, such as Italy. What is your evidence that we knew it had 'man-made properties' before early March 2020?

Malmesbury

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

The whole Swiss healthcare system is privatised and for profit, from insurers all the way down to immunisation providers for children. The reform would require junking the whole system, privatising healthcare entirely and making purchasing health insurance mandatory the same as car insurance.

Neither party is going to do that.

Even mentioning this by a Labour leader would cause a massive rift, and either he would be thrown out immediately or the party would split and he would be left in a tiny rump. Electoral and political suicide on a Trussian scale.

Leon

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

"China was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons."

Without meaning to further your monomaniacal belief, the above could mean two things: 1) They were investigating them as potential weapons to be used against others (and with little other use), or 2) They were investigating them because they were afraid other might weaponise the diseases, and look at what it meant.

The second is a much more interesting one to consider, as it covers both a defence against such weapons, as well as what the weapons might be.

But I reckon it's all tinfoilhattery anyway. As ever, you go for the DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!

There have been several times in the last ew decades (known thanks to increased surveillance) that there might have been a worldwide pandemic: MERS or H1N1 being examples. We got lucky then. We were unlucky with Covid.

The Chinese were speculating about weaponising coronaviruses as early as 2015. Indeed they wondered if such a bug could cripple foreign health systems!

"Titled, The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the paper was written in 2015 by 18 Chinese military scientists and weapons experts. They stated that a family of viruses called coronaviruses could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before.” Noteworthily, the cause of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a coronavirus that first emerged in Wuhan, China, and was named SARS-CoV-2. The document also highlighted how these engineered viruses will lead to a “new era of genetic weapons” and fantasised about a bioweapon attack that could cause the “enemy’s medical system to collapse.”

"This document, along with other intelligence inputs, has prompted US President Joe Biden to direct his Intelligence Community (IC) to investigate and report the origins of the virus in 90 days. While the investigation’s results are awaited, we must look at China’s philosophy and capabilities in the realm of biowarfare as Beijing’s ambitions and aggression grow.""

This paper, as a source, is not disputed, by the way

Some of the authors had links to the WIV

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/a-look-at-chinas-biowarfare-ambitions/

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jim_Miller said:

One thing that is hard for non-Americans (and even many Americans) ot understand is that there is no "American model" of health care.

Instead, there are a bunch of different systems, which can be understood historically, but do not together make a single system as, for example, the NHS does.

First, there is private insurance for workers, usually paid by employers, though there are still a few plans run by unions. (This became important during WW II, when wage controls kept employers from competing in the usual way for scarce workers.) The plans vary -- to put it mildly. A few are so generous that the Obama administration wanted to penalize these "Cadillac" plans.

Second, there is the immense Medicare single-payer system for old folks, with its parts A, B, C, and D*.

Third, there are 52 (50 states, Puerto Rico, and DC) Medicaid single-payer systems for poor folks. (Some, of course, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.)

Fourth, there is the Veteran's Adminstration system, which is something like your NHS, in that doctors and nurses are employees of the government,

Fifth, there is the Indian Health Service, where the doctors and nurses are, like the VA and NHS, employees of the government.

Sixth, there are health savings accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (When governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels set these up for state employees. They have been very popular there, appear to have cut medical expenses, and, if anything, improved outcomes. They might not do as well with a less educated population.)

And, there are other smaller ones.

I say this, not to defend all these systems -- which I don't -- but to ask you to understand the complexity, and perhaps even learn from our mistakes.

(*Full disclosure: I am enrolled in parts A and C of Medicare.)

It seems in America that you should be covered by your parents plan aged 0-18 and then your employer until retirement (but with expensive employee deductions and premiums) and then Medicare.

Medicaid if you're poor throughout, and not working, but I understand that cover is very basic. The other trouble is the "between jobs" piece.

And if you're employer is a cheap bastard and doesn't give you proper cover which is why so many working poor in the US have awful healthcare outcomes.

The US system is a disaster, worse than the NHS, which really goes to show how bad it is. I don't understand the focus on the US when there's so many viable models in Europe which have an element of personal risk liability as well as state subsidy and cover.

Precisely because it's unquestionably worse, so it suits the vested interests to portray the US system as the only alternative.

I don’t know. Back in the 80s and 90s there plenty of “radicals” who promoted a U.S. style system.

A US style system tied to the principle of universal health care is a European style system, so that's a moot point.

Ok whatever.

My point is that nobody sensible now thinks that a pure monolithic NHS makes sense, and everyone is aware that a U.S. style “system” is a disaster too.

I’m not a health economist, but as far as I know people tend to hold up the French system as the best (or least worst, because there doesn’t seem to be a perfect system).

France, Germany and Switzerland are the best, I think.

I think the fixation on UK vs US is not so much political from either side, as a feature of the dialled up volume of the US healthcare debate. The Americans seem to be keenest on this dichotomy: fans of their system hold out the NHS as an example of socialist healthcare, and detractors look longingly at the wonderful NHS where diabetes drugs don't bankrupt you. We get a bit of the same with policing and race relations unfortunately.

We luckily don't have the same problem of ignoring European examples when it comes to transport infrastructure, education (ish) or environmental standards.

I think this is what's always amused me about the British centre-left.

There's a lot of wax lyrical stuff about being European but ultimately we take almost all our cues from the US.

This is not the case in Europe proper - which just shows how different we are.

Wait till you hear about the British centre right, who think it the height of affected poofery
to eat moussaka.

It's just fancy shepherd's pie.

If I use British shepherds, it just doesn't taste the same.

Bah.

ydoethur

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Libera nos Domine

A sobering analysis of China by a biorisk expert


"COVID-19 in China: Current Situation and Downstream effects: 🧵

1/ From the outset, it is very important to recognise that a humanitarian catastrophe is currently unfolding in China. Analysis of this situation is not incompatible with recognising the horror of the situation."

https://twitter.com/brownecfm/status/1605169763663085568?s=20&t=fEMxLBfrvXCCO38KjKWV7Q

TLDR: FUCKKKKKKK

Also: stock up on crucial meds now. Prepare for a new variant. FUCKKKKK

Doesn't do a great deal for the global economic position either, does it?

No. At best we are going to get another bout of fierce downward pressure on the global "recovery"

A worse alternative is that we get globally interrupted supply lines for six months/year... which is ominous (on top of the millions-dead horror in China, of course)

Even worse: a new, nastier variant erupts when 800 million people all get Covid at once

Which is why I don't buy the bioweapon thesis.

It's going to royally fuck China. They covered it up out of embarrassment and because they wanted everyone else to suffer too, not just them; not because it was a sophisticated weapon to just cripple the West.

Yes, I don't believe it was a bioweapon. I DO believeChina was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons. This is all accepted. There is proof

Of course the USA was doing the same. Indeed one of the great ironies of Covid is that it likely came from the lab because the Americans deliberately funded Chinese GOF research in Wuhan. Why? One explanation: partly to get around the ban on GOF in the USA, but also because the Americans wanted an insider in Wuhan, to tell them what the Chinese were doing re bioweapons

I've read quite plausible analyses by sober people that Daszak - head of EcoHeath at WIV - was also working with the CIA, to do this insider stuff. That sounds totally mad - I admit- but it does explain why he has gone completely untouched to date, not even subpoena'd let alone brought to trial

"China was investigating coronaviruses as POTENTIAL bioweapons."

Without meaning to further your monomaniacal belief, the above could mean two things: 1) They were investigating them as potential weapons to be used against others (and with little other use), or 2) They were investigating them because they were afraid other might weaponise the diseases, and look at what it meant.

The second is a much more interesting one to consider, as it covers both a defence against such weapons, as well as what the weapons might be.

But I reckon it's all tinfoilhattery anyway. As ever, you go for the DRAMATIC!!!!!!!!!

There have been several times in the last ew decades (known thanks to increased surveillance) that there might have been a worldwide pandemic: MERS or H1N1 being examples. We got lucky then. We were unlucky with Covid.

The Chinese were speculating about weaponising coronaviruses as early as 2015. Indeed they wondered if such a bug could cripple foreign health systems!

"Titled, The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the paper was written in 2015 by 18 Chinese military scientists and weapons experts. They stated that a family of viruses called coronaviruses could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponised and unleashed in a way never seen before.” Noteworthily, the cause of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a coronavirus that first emerged in Wuhan, China, and was named SARS-CoV-2. The document also highlighted how these engineered viruses will lead to a “new era of genetic weapons” and fantasised about a bioweapon attack that could cause the “enemy’s medical system to collapse.”

"This document, along with other intelligence inputs, has prompted US President Joe Biden to direct his Intelligence Community (IC) to investigate and report the origins of the virus in 90 days. While the investigation’s results are awaited, we must look at China’s philosophy and capabilities in the realm of biowarfare as Beijing’s ambitions and aggression grow.""

This paper, as a source, is not disputed, by the way

Some of the authors had links to the WIV

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/a-look-at-chinas-biowarfare-ambitions/

Happy Hour (or five) at your local?

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour had 13 years to reform the NHS. And did not do so, beyond fiddling around the edges.

What makes you think Labour would be willing to take on the unions and other vested interests that would be required to reform the NHS?

Throwing more money at the problem is *not* a solution on its own.

"Fiddling around the edges"? Excuse my hollow laugh.

New Labour's embracing of PFI was as outrageous a system as anything the Tories have done in their tenure since.

And is still a financial disaster zone.

There is nothing wrong with PFI as a concept - indeed, many PFI projects have been successful. The problem is that many other PFI projects were disastrously defined at contract definition. And we hear about the failures.

I am wary about PFI being used for complex-to-run projects such as hospitals. I am much happier with using them for things such as roads. PFI (and related concepts) are a tool in the toolbox. You use the tool for the right job. New Labour often used them as a spanner to knock in a nail.

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

The problem is that a Swiss system would only work here if implemented by Labour.

The Tories will just be bought and paid for by the American companies who want their system here.

Only Labour can reform the NHS. And fix it.

They were making good progress on every measure until they were voted out. Shortest waiting times in history, highest rate of satisfaction ever. Cancer guarantee.

Get the Tories out.

Labour had 13 years to reform the NHS. And did not do so, beyond fiddling around the edges.

What makes you think Labour would be willing to take on the unions and other vested interests that would be required to reform the NHS?

Throwing more money at the problem is *not* a solution on its own.

"Fiddling around the edges"? Excuse my hollow laugh.

New Labour's embracing of PFI was as outrageous a system as anything the Tories have done in their tenure since.

And is still a financial disaster zone.

There is nothing wrong with PFI as a concept - indeed, many PFI projects have been successful. The problem is that many other PFI projects were disastrously defined at contract definition. And we hear about the failures.

I am wary about PFI being used for complex-to-run projects such as hospitals. I am much happier with using them for things such as roads. PFI (and related concepts) are a tool in the toolbox. You use the tool for the right job. New Labour often used them as a spanner to knock in a nail.

It's not surprising New Labour didn't know right tools when they saw them.

alednam

Cookie said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Way Off Topic

Does anyone on here have a clue WHY it is that Elon Musk is apparently bent on destroying Twitter?

Because it's a sewer?

I'd say that the explanation of Musk's destruction of witter is owed to his having overestimated his own capacities. Could anyone except an attention-craving narcissist be expected to know how properly to run, using a viable business model, a platform that plays a significant role in the global public sphere?