Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, if you combine a lot of nations in to one...

But if you combine, say, Canada and Mexico in to noe group they'd exceed the EU, those two countries combined bringing in twice as much total trade as the EU does.

Canada and Mexico have relatively little economic integration compared to Europe. That is why it matters that there is a Euro crisis affecting the US trade with Europe.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if Canada's economy collapsed due to some other cause.

We have this system here in Finland. In theory it is a solid idea but in practise not so much.

The problem comes when the rich notice that when they make "too much" money they start cutting their profits which leads to less economical growth.

And when wealth is distributed among the poor it leads to lazy people as they get money (even if they only get free services instead of pure money) without going anything.

So we got emplyers who don't expand their market even if market is suitable for it and on top of that we got lazy workers who produce low tax income for the goverment leading even higher taxing.

If I couldn't be an ork I would like to an american.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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

The European Union is the single largest trading partner of the USA.

I readily admit that I was wrong on the percentage of US exports that the EU represents, but in aggregate it's still only 2.2% of GDP.

This still leaves the US economy as a whole relatively insulated from EU recession. It represents a headwind, so US economic recovery will be made more difficult, but we're still making significant forward progress.

Kilkrazy wrote:Canada and Mexico have relatively little economic integration compared to Europe. That is why it matters that there is a Euro crisis affecting the US trade with Europe.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if Canada's economy collapsed due to some other cause.

No, but the American continents are still more important to the USA as as far as trading goes than Europe.

Hopefully your and Sourclams's theories won't be tested in practice.

Indeed, for Europe's sake.

For all our sakes, really.

The last thing the world needs now is for its largest integrated economy to go down the tubes.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about how a major economic meltdown in the EU wouldn't affect the USA in a serious way.

Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

sourclams wrote:I readily admit that I was wrong on the percentage of US exports that the EU represents, but in aggregate it's still only 2.2% of GDP.

You can't really say 'only 2.2% of GDP'.

"Oh, don't worry about that, it's only $308 billion every year."

There's also the issue that exports aren't just their total GDP, but their multiplier effect through the economy, as money earned from sales overseas are spent and respent through the economy.

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You mean back in the days when the average poor person was nearly a foot shorter due to malnutrition, and 40 was considered a ripe old age at which to die? Yeah, he's crazy.

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

biccat wrote:
You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

You're really going to post what you just did, and claim the person you're responding to was trolling?

At least pretend to subtlety man.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Is anyone else still trying to get over biccat's claim that life was pretty good for the poor before the welfare state? Because good God that was one of a kind crazy.

You're right sebster. Before social security anyone who reached age 65 1/2 was sent out on the street to die in the cold.

Without unemployment insurance, losing your job was a death sentence for you and your family.

Before food stamps if you worked a low-paying job you slowly starved to death.

I'm sure in 30 years you would argue that before 2011 the sick and uninsured were left to die in hospital beds without care.

Are you going to substantiate your claim, or keep trolling?

In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

The profit motive should never enter into medical decisions. In the UK I can count on recieving medical care at ANY time without having to worry about the bill. Sure I may have to wait in line sometimes but I can still get my NHS doctor to refer me to a private clinic for any procedures if I have the money and lack patience.
There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

Sonophos wrote:In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

Then you're not looking hard enough.

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not. However, there is a financial incentive for your doctor to refuse to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain medications.

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

NHS doctors are incentivized based on patient outcomes, aren't they?

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:In the US as far as I can see the uninsured don't even get to a hospital bed unless they want to bankrupt themselves to medical bills!

Then you're not looking hard enough.

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not. However, there is a financial incentive for your doctor to refuse to perform certain procedures or prescribe certain medications.

Really? I watched the Poor America documentary and that seemed fairly indicitive of the state of US health care for the poor. If you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your health insurance.

Yes, there are times when treatment and/or medication get refused by the NHS. They are predominantly cases that do not considerably limit the patient's longevity and/or cause excessive impact on thier quality of life.
The cases that get publicised the most tend to be cancer patients that want a certain exhorbitantly expensive palliative drug where NICE or the NHS trust don't view the drug as having a significant liklihood of increasing life span. In all probabilty only the VERY best private health insurance in the US would provide for these anyway and that is if the patient isn't refused insurance for a "pre-existing" condition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

Me or Biccat? Some doctors in the UK tried to pull this a couple of months ago and are now unemployed and struck off, I think one of them went to jail for a good few years. I will retract the "NEVER" and replace with "VERY RARELY".

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:There is NEVER a finacial incentive for my doctor to recommend unnecessary proceedures or medication.

No, there's not.

Are you joking?

Ok, maybe "never" is too broad. But generally, no, there's no "financial incentive" in JOE the same way there is an incentive in the US. The physician doesn't benefit by prescribing more procedures, tests, or medications. In fact, there's probably a tendency to under-prescribe because the financial incentives work the other way.

Sonophos wrote:Really? I watched the Poor America documentary and that seemed fairly indicitive of the state of US health care for the poor. If you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your health insurance.

Yes, propaganda will tend to make a really good case for their own side while demonizing the other side. "Sicko" also made a great case for Cuban-style health care.

Sonophos wrote:The cases that get publicised the most tend to be cancer patients that want a certain exhorbitantly expensive palliative drug where NICE or the NHS trust don't view the drug as having a significant liklihood of increasing life span.

Damn those cancer patients for wanting a better chance at living. They shouldn't burden the rest of the taxpayers, amirite?

Sonophos wrote:In all probabilty only the VERY best private health insurance in the US would provide for these anyway

Or, you could pay for it yourself. Always an option. Well, not in JOE.

Sonophos wrote:
Me or Biccat? Some doctors in the UK tried to pull this a couple of months ago and are now unemployed and struck off, I think one of them went to jail for a good few years. I will retract the "NEVER" and replace with "VERY RARELY".

Biccat.

Malpractice law is the most pressing, but licensing is another (Yes, this is a financial incentive.) issue, then there is the obvious incentive that follows from all technical industries: I want to convince you to use my services more, so I make more money.

To reiterate: "Well, that spark plug look might wobbly, we better replace the manifold!"

Hyperbole, but the incentive is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Ok, maybe "never" is too broad. But generally, no, there's no "financial incentive" in JOE the same way there is an incentive in the US. The physician doesn't benefit by prescribing more procedures, tests, or medications. In fact, there's probably a tendency to under-prescribe because the financial incentives work the other way.

Maybe, but I doubt that follows from the relevant risks, and I know its not been my experience with doctors that I know.

dogma wrote:then there is the obvious incentive that follows from all technical industries: I want to convince you to use my services more, so I make more money.

I was under the impression that physicians in JOE were not paid based on the services provided, but instead on the number of patients seen.

dogma wrote:To reiterate: "Well, that spark plug look might wobbly, we better replace the manifold!"

Sticking with the hyperbole, the JOE technician would replace the spark plug and send you to a specialist if you were concerned about the manifold.

Define JOE please.

It seems to me that the medical provider is logically incentivised to get as much out of those that pay, be they private persons or insured persons; insurance companies are by definition motivated to take as much in premiums as possible whilst paying out as little as possible. There are too many moral hazards in this system for my liking.

So ACTUAL film of ACTUAL people having to effectively beg for health care is only so much propaganda? Yes facts can be scewed but the BBC is not in the habit of paying people to stand around in the dark with thier kids for the sake of propaganda.

No you are not right. You are simplifying the issue. The patient through desperation finds a drug that MAY in thier mind improve thier chances but they are not experts in the feild. A clinical decision made by experts shows that the patient is wrong. THIS IS STILL A SIMPLIFICATION but still closer to the truth. Patients can appeal a decision.

Yes you can still pay for it yourself in the UK.

Sonophos wrote:Define JOE please.

Jolly Olde England.

Sonophos wrote:It seems to me that the medical provider is logically incentivised to get as much out of those that pay, be they private persons or insured persons; insurance companies are by definition motivated to take as much in premiums as possible whilst paying out as little as possible. There are too many moral hazards in this system for my liking.

Cool.

The JOE medical provider is incentivized to provide as little care as possible to the greatest number of patients at the lowest level of cost. Seems like there might be moral hazards there too.

Sonophos wrote:So ACTUAL film of ACTUAL people having to effectively beg for health care is only so much propaganda? Yes facts can be scewed but the BBC is not in the habit of paying people to stand around in the dark with thier kids for the sake of propaganda.

I didn't say it was fake, I said it was propaganda. You can create some pretty interesting arguments by selective application of facts. I don't think Michael Moore faked much of his "documentaries," I suspect that most of his shots were actual and truthful. Heck, his portrayal of Charlton Heston in Bowling was real...it was just magnificantly taken out of context.

Sonophos wrote:No you are not right. You are simplifying the issue. The patient through desperation finds a drug that MAY in thier mind improve thier chances but they are not experts in the feild. A clinical decision made by experts shows that the patient is wrong. THIS IS STILL A SIMPLIFICATION but still closer to the truth. Patients can appeal a decision.

Ah, well then, that's fair. If the government decides that I don't deserve life-saving treatment, at least there's a path to appeal the decision. To the government. Who denied my treatment in the first place. I'm sure that a bunch of experts will be able to better accomodate my preferences than I will.

The JOE medical practitioner is incentivised to provide the best patient outcomes he can. There are penalties in place for institutions that discharge a patient prematurely as well as the built in cost of keeping them too long.

Sorry but I can't remember EVER coming accross charity clinics in JOE (or Scotland; or Wales; or Northern Ireland) let alone ones that run in the middle of the night and have long queues.

The appeals proceedure is handled by disinterested parties and/or the courts. If that is the way you want to view a system with checks and balances built into it then there is little I could do to change your perspective.

Tell ya what biccat get on a plane and come take a look, oh btw you will need insurance because you don't pay UK taxes.

Sonophos wrote:The JOE medical practitioner is incentivised to provide the best patient outcomes he can. There are penalties in place for institutions that discharge a patient prematurely as well as the built in cost of keeping them too long.

You're idealizing the JOE practitioner. He responds to incentives just like everyone else.

How are the penalties for premature discharge or keeping a patient too long determined? I'd wager that they're not at the discretion of the physician. The incentive in government-run programs is to follow the rules to the letter in order to avoid punishment. If a patient's needs are contrary to the rules, the patient will lose.

Sonophos wrote:Sorry but I can't remember EVER coming accross charity clinics in JOE (or Scotland; or Wales; or Northern Ireland) let alone ones that run in the middle of the night and have long queues.

Sure you have. They're the same clinics you go to.

If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

Which is saying something.

The guy who set up the emergency clinic for impoverished Americans had previously been doing the same work in a third-world country, and moved to the States to set up his project because he claimed the the conditions faced by the US poor were not dissimilar.

Anyone fancy guessing which country he was originally from?

Albatross wrote:If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

If the facts implied by your comment are true - that British hospitals and GP clinics aren't open at all hours and are not required to provide services to those who can't afford to pay - then I have seriously misjudged the UK health system.

Perhaps I really am that crazy.

GP clinics are not open all hours and are only obligated to provide services to registered patients.

If you need emergency health services there are walk-in clinics and hospital AE departments.

Treatment at the point of service is free, except for prescriptions for medicines.

Kilkrazy wrote:GP clinics are not open all hours and are only obligated to provide services to registered patients.

If you need emergency health services there are walk-in clinics and hospital AE departments.

Treatment at the point of service is free, except for prescriptions for medicines.

Ah, so the key difference between charity clinics in the US and UK clinics is that in the UK you have to be on the list and come in at the right time? Oh, and it's not free.

Whatever works I suppose. I would suggest you guys look into the "charity clinics" we have here in the States. They're free, open all hours, and will service anyone.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:If you think that British hospitals and GP clinics are anything like the clinic in the aforementioned documentary, then you're crazier than I thought.

If the facts implied by your comment are true - that British hospitals and GP clinics aren't open at all hours and are not required to provide services to those who can't afford to pay - then I have seriously misjudged the UK health system.

Perhaps I really am that crazy.

GP clinics aren't open all hours, and both hospitals and GP clinics occupy purpose-built buildings and are staffed by fully-trained medical professionals. The American emergency clinic for the poor that features in the documentary was in a gym, and was staffed by volunteers with medical experience from the National Guard, amongst other things. To imply any similarity between that and our healthcare system is insulting and extremely ignorant.

I think it's clear at this point that you have a pretty poor knowledge of the UK health system - you thought that private insurance had been abolished, for example. That's fine, of course. Why would you know anything about it? You don't live here, and don't use the service. I don't know a great deal about American healthcare. The thing is, if I don't know anything, or know very little about a subject, I don't pretend that I do. Perhaps that would be a prudent course of action for you, instead of spouting the same tired old rhetoric kindly supplied to you by the American extreme right-wing's propaganda machine.

Just a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, GP clinics are not for medical emergencies - that's what hospital A&E departments are for. They are open 24/7/365, and will treat anyone with a pressing medical need.

In the UK, the NHS (Government) can deny coverage of your services.

In the US, the Insurance Company (private, profit driven organization) can deny coverage of your services.

I guess the question is, which is more accountable to the people that need the service?