Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
People have 4 or 5 k per month during the pandemic and leave (or so they say). hmmm....... They say there were belittling comments, he did not take them seriously ... etc. But no gross abuse (like Klobuchar throwing files at staff), or name calling. So an impatient, demanding, maybe sarcastic boss ? ... And several of them give up that job during the pandemic (or that wasn't a choice and they were let go ?)
Call me crazy but I think in real life most would suck it up, because it is likely he will lose and the job will be over in a few months anyway. If he was only an unpleasant boss with a shitty attitude ...
Or is it that they assume he will lose and are hedging their bets to be acceptable DCCC material in the future ? The DCCC made the rule that companies and persons that work for a challenger of an incumbent will be blacklisted. Now they must have assumed right away, that he had little chance to win. On the other hand they could turn that around and get into the good graces of the DNC and DCCC.
Now a few progressives have won, and maybe the party establishment are getting nervous. Even if he comes close, that does not bode well.
The staffers could move on to the next job in Nov. 2020, no bridges burnt. Well, not with the DNC or D.C. insiders........
It will be interesting to see where these staffers pop up next.
Methinks someone got job offers. Plus: Shahid may be an unpleasant boss.
The objection to his 100k salary seems to be far fetched.
A person that has 5k per month - that equals 60,000 per year.
So what would be the appropriate wage for him ? 80,000 ? That seems to be a petty argument. Obviously the campaign had the money to pay several staffers well.
4
-
Not correct - Germany allows optional ! regulated private health insurance (based on risk!) for approx. 10 % of the population - people with good income, some typical free lance professions like architects, and government employees who have a very steady income and do not get unemployed. This was a favour a conservative government long ago handed out to private insurance companies who had a chance to get a cherry picket segment of the popuplation: healthy younger folks with good income. High deductibles are not common - not sure if they are even allowed. The market is regulated, the 90 % of public insured patients set the bench mark for prices, so that helps the 10 % not getting ripped off for meds and treatments like in the U.S.
Even so they are not too happy with it - premiums have been going up a lot in recent years. And once a person opted for private insurance they cannot go back (not sure if not at all or if it is very hard).
90 % of the population are insured in a public non-profit insurance company and the premium is based on income not age, gender, familiy or health status. Now, technically they have MORE than one public non-profit insurance agency instead of one large for all of the country. That's a detail of organization - they are not private.
In Austria (their neighbour which organize their society pretty much the same as the Germans) there are 15 - 20 non profit public insurance agenices (one large for each of the 9 states, 1 for the farmers, the teachers,....) and they have 1 holding on top. While they have SOME independance (they may have different tariffs for doctors for instance) they also coordinate (exchange price information no doubt) and certainly do not compete. They are called Social Security Insurance Agencies- they also handle retirement pensions, inability pension.
Technically health care coverage is not a legal right in Austria, it is just so that everyone has it - either through work or other provisions. Only people who are completely lost - like folks becoming homeless because of addictions and who are not able to take care of the administrative stuff or cannot come up with the modest amount necessary to insure yourself - will be without insurance. They will get treatment (I thank that is a legal requirement at least in hospitals) but in case they ever win the lottery or inherit something they would have to pay back since they were not insured.
Since there are not many people that are that lost, they can be carried by the insured participants of the system. So there is not a huge bureaucracy necessary to decide who has coverage at all or to what extent. I would not make sense for the very few who do not have insurance. And anyone who has insurance has full coverage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+allegory - the Tories willingly sabotaging the U.K. healthcare system infuriates me - and I am not even an UK citizen - the snap election result gives some hope. Iif you have use for some argumentative points:
WORLD BANK per capita health care expenditures in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200, average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500, Australia 6,000, Norway plus 8,000.
You ADD 40 / 45 % to the UK per capita expenditures and land at the German and Austrian level (5,600 resp. 5,400).
The NHS is and always has been a very cost efficient system (certainly the most cost-efficient in Europe, among the best in the world - of course other better funded systems might have been better or more comfortable. According to Larry Sanders the NHS runs on 100 billion GBP a year now, the Tories CUT 15 - 20 BILLIONS in the last 6 -8 years (which is HUGE), and planned 20 billions more in cuts (that info came from before the snap election).
The words RECKLESS resp. RUTHLESS comes to mind. - The average voter may not know it - but it is the job of a politician to know that you cannot have a system worthy of a First World Country without some MINIMUM funding. - The Tories evoke the vision of financial problems w/o ever mentioning that the UK always has spent much less than comparable nations. -The honest thing would be to admit, that the Tories do not want to have modern healthcare for EVERYONE - hard to sell that in a democracy, even some wealthy people who are fine themselves might get uneasy at the vision of people diying on the doorsteps of hospitals. Or children not getting life saving treatment because of the economic status of their parents.
Intentionally undermining the NHS makes sense (in an evil way), a public health service that works well (enough) and is still among the most cost efficient in the world * cannot be sold off to for-profit interests. Public means NON profit ! - in the eyes of the conservatives it is likely a major flaw that such a large chunk of the economy will on principle not benefit the financier and rentier class.
* comparing wealthy ! nations with each other: wages are a huge factor in healthcare, so you can compare Australia with France, Denmark, or Germany. The average wages in Hungary or Poland for instance are much lower, so that is not comparable.
Public means: it is only meant to do well for the patients and the staff (while staying within a reasonable budget).
Let me repeat: the U.K. had a healthcare system with lean funding that worked O.K. and then came the the FINANCIAL CRISIS and they started making cuts.
The crisis was caused by U.S. banks initially giving out subprime mortgages in a reckless manner, then they repackaged and bundled them for selling them. The highly respected U.S. ! ratings agencies declared them to be of good quality, the Europaen banks foolishly and recklessy bought them up in masses and THEN they all started speculating like crazy ON THOSE LOAN packages ! (most other banksters worldwide did it and and the City of London was big into it).
Needless to say: regulators and politicians worldwide looked the other way - of course all the INSIDERS KNEW something was fishy about these transactions - they created enough "plausible deniability" to fool the public in 2007 - 2009 and thanks to legal (or illegal) bribes (donations, lobbying, revolving door) they all stayed out of prison.
Add to that the the high costs of the wars and regime changes (which the U.K. population did not want in the first place) and the high costs of the bank bailouts and the effects of the economic downturn. These financial strains (caused by the financial sector plus to some degree by the war mongerers) were the PRETEXT to IMPOSE AUSTERITY and to make MASSIVE CUTS.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE to wreck the publicly funded systems (that benefit only the low to middle income people, and on top the wealthier people might have to contribute more in comparsion to fund the healthcare and social care systems).
The madness has method and history behind it: Thatcher publicly promised to not touch the NHS, secretly planned otherwise - and her inner circle made a massive intervention, they were not as ideological and realized that move could amount to policital suicide.
Any party willing to compromise the healthcare and social care system, a press (owned by rich persons !) that does not call a spade a spade - and the part of the opposition (New Labour, Blairites) that does not fiercly oppose and call out those assaults are useless / evil / reckless / sell-outs.
As for the snap election result - Well done ! It's a good start.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ left leaning libertarian Public option - although some improvement - is not very good. Creating a 2-tier system, and not getting rid of the private for-profit insurance system alltogether, inevitabely makes healthcare more expensive and creates harmful or cost-driving incentives.
I live in a country with single payer (Austria, I also know the German system). Employers (small or large) and workers pay contributions as percentage of wage - the SAME percentage. The federal and local governments fund the system with taxes on top of that.
It is PUBLIC, MANDAROTRY if you have a job (or an income as farmer or entrepreneur) with more than approx. USD 500 per month. It is NON-PROFIT, UNIFIED and STREAMLINED thus very cost-efficient, and based on the solidarity principle.
"Solidarity" means contributions according to your income/wage - meaning you CAN afford it - your individual risk (and that of your dependent family members who are insured with you for FREE) DOES NOT MATTER. No more payments when you need treatment or a medical service. Everyone is insured.
Healthcare is a very bad fit for the usual "capitalistic" incentives and the free market. So in absence of the free market forces you need mechanisms to keep the system well functioning and cost-efficient.
Good thing: almost the whole country is in one boat here (not the Pharma Industry - lol)
The doctors will keep the system up to date (they are lobbied by the pharma industry, are invited to events, so of course they want the new technologies, techniques, tools). Workers and employers pay the same percentage based on the wage, so on one hand they want the system to be efficient, on the other hand they want good care - either as patients but the corporations have a stake in it too. Their top employees land in the same hospitals like everybody else - and they want a healthy workforce.
The public insurance agency will make some surplus in one year, a minus in the next, over time they are expected to even out and stay more or less within the budget. They do not need to make a profit (for shareholders or owners). They need to pay the bills of their contract partners (private for-profit familiy doctors or non-profit hospitals and the pharmacies) and they need to come up with the costs for IT, their staff, the buildings and equipment.
So the public agency has an incentive for preventive care (driving costs down in the long run), they will not be opposed to new drugs, technologies. Of course if it is very expensive it might be a drain on their budget - THEN there will be a PUBLIC discusssion. Will they need higher contributions (this is the means of last resort - employers don't like it) ? Can they shift budgets (rehab budgets are relieved for instance), can they save in other areas ? Last time they came up with the idea to regulate the Pharma industry more. There is a concentration process going on with hospitals to improve efficiency (the equivalent of the governors were part of the negotiations - the states subisdize the hospitals so they have a say as well). But if they are overdoing it and quality declines the governors would be blamed by the voters. Not functioning healthcare would be blamed on politicians - and those - unlike CEOs - can be voted out by the public (That's theory - our politicans know better than to be cavalier about healthcare.)
And important: everyone gets the same kind of treatment at the same places. So the wealthier segment of the population will see to it that the system is good - they are not going to put up with crap. You lose that corrective force with a 2-tier system. The media tends to concentrate on the woes of the haves - if the "basic" system for the unwashed masses does not function well, it is much more likely to be ignored. I think that is the case with VA care in the U.S. (and they have the advantage of a lot of prestige).
A 2 tier system requires expensive bureaucracy. It is a lot of hassle to DENY CARE - and to "differentiate" who gets what kind of care at what place.
Healthcare is a example for an ONE SIZE FITS ALL service. Even wealthy people will not opt for MORE X-rays. It is either necessary or not. Your cancer requires surgery - and then radiation, chemo - OR NOT. Should not have anything to do with having a "basic" or "luxury" plan. And if you are good with surgery and the cancer is gone, would you be annoyed because you miss out on the chemo ?
And no one says: that burn treatment was nice, I am coming back for a broken arm next year. Healthcare is not a "nice to have, I want more" product. Overtreatment is at least expensive, often even harmful. And not getting ENOUGH or timely treatment is devastating. So it is about getting the RIGHT and necessary and appropriate extent of care and prevention - not more and not less - and for everyone.
Wealthy people do not profit from more treatment and low-income people should not get less - or it will have massive negative impacts on the economy (apart from ethical considerations).
The private market with the public option means there will be one pool for the wealthy who are also healthy, and another pool for low income people (easily dismissed) and for older people or high risk people. So the cherrypicked pool will always look very good costwise, it will help the for-profit players to smuggle in some extra profits (because their costs cannot be compared).
The public pool has to do the heavy lifting. Considering the "level" of the current healthcare discussion in the U.S. it is sure to be constantly slammed for being too expensive, because "government healthcare is always, always inefficient".
With ONE risk pool* where costs are very transparent ! such claims can be easily debunked - you can compare costs on an international level.
* those pools can be state by state. If you do not cherrypick a few hundred thousand people are enough - Iceland has 300,000 and Germany 80 million people - both systems work, and Iceland beats Germany (might have to do with the average age or they live healthier).
A 2-tier system would offer the option to slowly STARVE the public system. And then slam it for not working well while being too expensive. The wealthy and healthy people will flee to the "better" private option - and those who cannot afford to switch can be easily ignored.
The Tories in the UK have more or less despised the NHS since it was founded in 1945 (class division is alive and well on the island) - right now they try to starve the NHS to death to "justify" a privatization. - They are in bad luck. Despite the media more or less colluding with that agenda (or at least not calling them out on the crap) the Brits are much more resistant. They still remember the NHS being O.K. (despite very lean funding even 10 years ago). There have been cuts of 15 % in the last 8 - 10 years when it always was one of the most cost-efficient systems in the world (for a wealthy nation). Until recently the Tories planned even more cuts - with the messed up snap election that is over. Labour under Corbyn is going to oppose them fiercly and has now a broad support on Social media. They do not depend of the mainstream media anymore to defend the NHS.
A good system should have mandatory participation even and especially ! for the wealthy people. The U.S. system is at least 40 % too expensive ** (compared to Germany which are on the higher end of the average for a European system), so there is some room for savings. On the other hand wealthy citizens and the profitable enterprises will subsidize the low-income people. When the system works well, the wealthy are getting something in return - and will be supportive of the system. As is the case in all other First World countries.
** WORLD BANK health care expenditures in USD in 2014: Germany 5,600, US 9,200, UK 3,900 - the wealthy European countries and Canada are usually in the 5k to 5,5k range.
3
-
3
-
Even IF the Russians hacked the emails (and that is not proven - as for Leak vs. Hack: hear Glenn Greenwald on that, or former NSA technical director Willian Binney = Father of 24/7 spying technology). Anyway the voters had more CORRECT information (not slander like the golden shower allegation story that the CIA officially attached ! to an official report !! about fake news !! This was an CIA attempt to smear Trump. I am not a Trump fan at all, but that is a SCANDAL. Where else do the agencies play politics ? Where else do they present such shoddy work, make such rookie mistakes, show such unprofessional bias ?
The truth is that HRC could have counteracted the effect of the leaked (very likely leaked not hacked) emails by embracing the progressive agenda - embracing it in a way that was believeable so voter turnout would be high and the young people would run for her campaign.
For any Sanders supporter, the leaked emails confirmed what was already known. Cheating the Sanders campaign, collusion with the media, pay for play, the DNC instructed ! the media ! to prop up fringe candidates (Ben Carson, Donald Trump) they hoped HRC could run in the GE against such a fringe candidate or that they would at least keep Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in check. (Brilliant strategy).
The Dems made their pitch in the GE to Republicans, they thought the progressives had no other choice - they would not vote Trump AND they would come out for HRC because Trump is so bad. They thought that the white working class people who had voted for Obama, had no choice - so she could not be bothered (or did not have the stamina) to fight for their vote. Podesta said so (no leak or hack, official statement: for every blue collar we lose in the Rust Belt we will get 2 moderate Republicans. The email revealed that she did not really denounce TPP. No one who paid attention believed her change of opinion on it- so it was another confirmation of "She will say anything to get your vote and then do whatever the donors want".
The Clinton campaign strategy was : Trump is so bad and you have no other choice.
She actually ran such a bad and tone deaf campaign, there was so much hubris and entitlement - that she acutally ACHIEVED a loss against Trump.
3
-
3
-
As for single payer - Manchin is right - the costs would be different - they would be LOWER per capita - deduct 40 % of the U.S. per capita costs of 9,200 USD and you are at the German level - and per capita means: All that is ALREADY SPENT in one year divided through the US population of approx. 325 millions. That number of 325 millions includes of course the people w/o insurance and those who did not need or get any treatment in that year. Germany is on the higher end of the European average with 5,6k USD AND the German population is on average older than the U.S. population. Clearly there is a LOT of room for savings.
When all are insured, the costs for the majority of citizens would be lower. (The LABEL for the PAYMENT might change, for instance no more payment to a private insurance company, lower payments to the public insurance company, plus some taxes according to income - meaning unless you are upper middle class your net costs will NOT be higher; VERY LIKELY LOWER).
Wealthy single, healthy, individuals will pay more - either directly or in form of taxes. Of course if the insanely high military budget is ever cut, those taxes could be allocated to healthcare and not even the rich would have to pay more to help out with the financing of the healthcare of their fellow citizens.
Average per capita costs in Europe are 5 - 5,5 k, in U.S. 9,200 (World Bank, 2014, in USD). In the U.K. 3,900 - but they are clearly STARVING the NHS - the Tories try to ram through a privatization and before that they have to ruin the functioning public system - I guess it is more likely it will contribute to their political defeat - the Brits are not having it.
In Europe after WW2 all nations adopted Single Payer (and that includes nations that just had stopped being mortal enemies). And they all installed or continued/ improved a non-profit, public healthcare system based on the solidarity principle *.
Based on these principles all these countries (some very small, some large) came up with their national solution. And they all have good reliable healthcare, all of them have MUCH LOWER COSTS. Their citizens do not waste a thought on the healthcare system - why would they, it is there when they need it and the contributations for those who have enough income are mandatory. So it is all very simple and streamlined (and therefore cost-efficient).
And that is for sure NOT market driven (neither is the U.S. system, it is not a market - at least not a "free and fair" market. Healthcare is one of the services that is - on principle - a very bad fit for the free market mechanisms. That was the reason why ALL OTHER wealthy nations have a public, non-profit solution in the first place. There IS NO FAIR and FREE MARKET POSSIBLE FOR HEALTHCARE (or the railway, or the water supply, or the police, ....)
* Solidarity: that means you pay a contribution that you can for sure afford (and that can be zero for instance when you are unemployed, or below a certain income level) and that's it - no more payments when you get treatment. Solidarity also means your individual risk does not matter AT ALL (and therefore no bureaucraZy or denial industry is necessary)
Solidarity also means that the wealthier segements of the population, the young, healthy, single and urban, and the more profitable enterprises and branches "subsidize" to some extent the large families, low income people, the sick, old, people with pre-existing condtions, rural areas, and branches where the pay is traditionally lower.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tcovington0711 there are plenty of weapons around but only a small fragment of the population owns them. And most of them would like to remain members of society. They are all talk - but they wouldn't engage in combat (except for the few crazies which is bad enough - see the attack on the church goes in Charleston). - your nephew very likely does not want to go to prison, lose house, job, home, healthcare insurance, car (to pay for the lawyers).
Trump does not have the military on his side for a coup (else it would be frightening). The AR15 are nothing compared to the gear the police, FBI, DHS and the military has.
Those vigilantes in the Bundy cattle standoff (cattle grazing fees on BML land for a rich racist farmer) did not win. The FBI took it very easy on them, and some of these guys repeated their stunt later. One of them got shot (another one that had hung out with the crowd, left and committed a murder in a restaurant.
They had their day in court, the legal expenses, not sure how many wound up in prison. (They were publishing quite whiney social media posts once the FBI had cut off electricity, food, not sure about water ... - it is one thing to pose as "fierce warrior" or talk a good game to your worried aunt.
after all is said and done, they want a middle class life and that does not square with militant revolutionary activities and the high risks for life, health, family and property that would come with such a fight.
3
-
@tcovington0711 Let me give you some encouraging insights about the cowardice of the big mouths (as soon as THEY could suffer consequences) - from the regime change in Eastern Germany in 1989. Civic groups had demanded and even protested for more freedom in the 1980s They sniffed morning air when Gorbachev got into power and loosened the grip on the Soviet society. Glasnost and Perestroika (Change and Opening).
The quite hardline Eastern German government had always been very obedient towards the Soviet rulers. NOW they dissented from the Soviet line for the first time. Economically Eastern Germany did better than the other Warsaw Pact nations (or the Soviet Union), they also tolerated religion as a private affair. Religious groups were part of the protest movement (and you bet the government had infiltrators).
But the protection of the ideological rules was done with German zeal and perfectionism. Those that held power and managed the country were not "true believers" - many turned right into the Capitalistic Conservative Neoliberal camp, once it was there where influence, power and good positions could be obtained (after 1989). The "hardline" stance and trying to control even what the population said among themselves had to do with a grip on power and they did it with typical German diligence.
they had a tight surveillance and snitching operation going on (that was very unpopular with the population, it could be that a family member or a work collegue or neighbour "turned you in". The harmless consequences were that you (or your teenage children !) could not pursue higher education, had job disadvantages, did not get the appartment when it was your turn on the waiting list.
Or it could get really bad for instance when you considered fleeing or you knew that someone was trying to and you did not rat them out - the suspicion that you "covered up for a refugee from the Republic " would get you intensely interrogated and if they thought that you knew something but didn't tell the authorities it would get you before a court and likely into prison. (No torture used but very long interrogations, with all the psychological tricks, and the trials were not fair of course).
The agency that did the surveillance and had the "informal informers" under contract was called STASI.
Soviet tanks and military had stopped attempts for a (more) democratic system in the 1950s in Hungary and Eastern Germany, and in the 1970s in Czechoslovakia (the crushing of the Prague Spring). And then the Soviets had made sure a hardline government completey alinged with the Soviet rulers was put into power. Some countries softened that after decades (Hungary or Poland) - but not in Eastern Germany.
But in the mid 1980s the Eastern German hardliners KNEW that Gorbachev was not going to send the tanks and the military to stop a potential popular uprising and "save" the ruling elites - and the democracy oriented cititzen groups knew it too.
Eastern Germany also had gotten large loans in the early 1980s from Western Germany - sure they had recovered from their currency troubles and they also exported goods: for instance household appliances, lower price segment, quite good for the cost (the largest catalogue sender in Germany had that line). Or furniture for Ikea. It is not true that Eastern Germany was "broke" in 1989.
But the rulers for sure had good reasons to not jeopardize the relationship with Western Germany and the citizens of Western Germany paid attention what was going on on the other side of the wall. So brutally crushing civic dissent would have been a PR and political disaster. Might have cut them off of more loans or trade.
The Eastern German elites got increasingly uneasy about the dissent and demonstrations. They did crush demonstrations but never shot at demonstrators (later it came out some had considered it - but they did not dare to Cooler heads and self-interest prevailed. Their thinking: It could be that at some time (maybe some 10 years into the future) there would be political change - so then they might be held accountable. it was not opportune to defend the hardline rule at PERSONAL RISK.
Well it did not take 10 years but only a few.
Towards the end the STASI started to destroy the files about their spying operation - they did not use computers, it was all paper files. Including the files about the informal informers = the snitches and the lists with the CLEAR NAMES of informers - that could also be journalists in Western Germany for instance ! They had those files down to a T - again German perfectionism.
The protesters learned about it and stormed the headquarters (unarmed, non-violent, they took over and preserved the files, they still exist * and people can ask for information).
You have no idea how shocked the officers there were. Under normal circumstances the protesters would have been shot to death - and those who survived would have landed in prison. But then the fierce and feared STASI officiers and their security team did not DARE to open fire or to even resist with physical violence. They knew there was a good chance there would be massive political change right away - and they did not want to deal with the personal consequences later if they "followed orders" - under other circumstance they would have shot them all without blinking an eye.
The people storming the headquarters took a calculated risk - they could hope it would go that way - but everything could have happened.
Citzens (from Eastern Germany but also other nations) that want to find out if someone had ratted them out, or if the STASI collected information about them, can do so (for instance well known journalists from Western Germany almost certainly had been covered).
Those seeking information have to make an appointment and the rule is that the clear name of informers (in the files they are always mentioned with their code name) will not be unveilled if they were minors at the time (as far as the information seeking person is concerned, so a snitch may be uncovered to one person but not to another one). The files are not published - you can demand insight and I think it is not allowed to make copies or photos.
If the STASI did not have a file on you they will tell you (that is unlikely though. IF a person suspects there was information collected about them, they are usually right). Some are even shocked that the STASI bothered to cover them when they checked it out just to be sure (Father was in upper management in a then nationalized steel plant in Austria, they collected information about his son when he went to university - they did a very thorough job. Father not really a big fish, Austria is a small country and the student son was a nobody).
Gaining insight - or not - is quite nerve recking for some citizens. I read a case of one Eastern German who KNEW someone had ratted them out to the Eastern German authorities, and he suspected it could have been his brother. So he hesistated for a long time - unsure if he even wanted to know.
In the end it turned out the informant had been an uncle with alcohol problems. Things like that were leveraged against potential informants to "recruit" them using blackmail. Also low level crime. Others just wanted to help their career.
STASI also groomed teenagers if they were loners and did not have friends or other difficulties (or on the other hand if the teenager was the leader of the pack and very popular). A fatherly or motherly figure would befriend them and convince them to help the authorities to "fight the good fight on the information front". Hence the rule that the clear name of snitches that were minors is not unveilled.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So sorry to hear that. Had a situation in the neighbourhood last holidays (boxing day 2018). I currently live in Austria. Old but healthy man (nearly 80) experiences severe and increasing stomach pain. Family doctor arrived quickly, I think he checked for a possible imminent heart attack, the signs were inconclusive. (and the patient already had stents).
Doctor wanted an emergency ambulance (not a regular one, but one that is with a doctor on board and I think they are better equipped to do reanimation. These doctors are very experienced).
so in case he goes into cardiac arrest during transport ...
None available immediately so the doctor ordered a helicopter instead. family was told not to freak out. usually you know if they order the helicopter it is serious. In that case it was an upgrade and erring on the side of caution. Those helicopters also have a doctor on board. Transport time (driving) would have been 25 - 30 minutes to the hospital.
any ambulance (normal, emergency) or the airlift is of course free at the point of delivery.
Not to rub it in - but you need to tell that to people that badmouth "socialized" medicine, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Spending here: 54 % of the U.S. spending per person (U.S. 10,260 in 2017, Kaiser Permanente, also see world Bank data).
here the Red Cross does a lot of the normal ambulance services (they get paid by the public non-profit insurance agency). Volunteering for the Red Cross is a thing, some work as drivers, some on the telephone. And they get other help (which is free for the non-profits). There is the draft to the military for young males, if they do not want to do that they can instead opt for social services (and 2 months more).
They get paid like the drafted recruits (by the government), but of course not like in a professional career. Many are consigned to the Red Cross posts (which are spread out over the country also in smaller communities, think 8,000 people and upwards) - the Red Cross is one of the institutions that has been getting "conscientous obejectors" for decades, also public non-profit homes for the elderly, or in social projects,....
There is another non-profit that also does transports (the Samaritarians).
so regular transports are certainly cheaper (because they do not have to pay all the workforce), and the non-profit insurance agency has also a good tariff with the provider of the airlifts. Likely the agency or another org directly provides the doctor and a private company (or automobil club) provides the helicopter services for a region. (paid per transport) Helicopter and the doctor were on standby anyway. If the rates are well negotiated, the doctors "prescribing" the airlift can err on the side of caution. And the providers of the airlift service make enough because the service is often used.
I know a man who did his civil draft (the mandatory service) with the Red Cross and continued with them some time as volunteer in his spare time (Red Cross and other non-profits like the scheme they recruit lots of voluntary helpers which continue after the mandatory service). He said it used to be that the team of a normal ambulance (first responder training, but not doctors of medicine) could call the helicopter if they were the first "medical" staff on the scene (think traffic accidents). That didn't work out that well - they overdid it. So usually that right is reserved to doctors now.
But the doctors have choice - that is also an important point, people here do not want choice nor do they get it. If they earn more than 500 USD per month, 3,8 % of the wage is deducted (the yearly cap is 2,400 USD per year, so that would be a yearly wage of 60k before taxes) and the employer must match that (even small companies). The rest of the funding comes from the government.
The mandate constitutes also a right - full coverage (incl. for dependent family members). incl. airlifts if that is medically warranted. And no or little payments later (co-pays for drugs, around 6 USD, nothing dramatic).
The DOCTORS HAVE CHOICE on behalf of their patients. From a "framework" of medical services worthy of a first world country. Which is all the choice you really need. (the insurance agency was not asked if they approved of that specific transport. they would not have been available anyway, it was a holiday. Airlift is on the menu, the doctors decide).
If people do not call the ambulance in time it is not for fear of the costs. That neighbour intended to go by himself and he is a tough cookie, it then got bad fast. So the whole situation could have been less dramatic if he had paid attention 2 hours earlier (but that will not be held against him. Plus in his case. That attitude also means he is in good shape and does not let himself go. - it was an almost ruptured stomach, and no heart problem - and if you ask him now it was nothing, really ! He continues his long walks alone and we can all calm down !
3
-
3
-
3
-
vote progressives to get a more European style system, ACA was devised in the 90s by a rightwing think tank (Heritage Foundation) - of course it does not work for the regular people, it is meant to protect corporate profits. - the per capita expenditures of the U.S. are 60 - 80 % above the average wealthy ! European country or Canada.
Healthcare is one of the areas where "free market" is not possible on principle and the usual capitalistic incentives produce toxic results and dysfunction.
There is a reason that all European countries after WW2 implemented systems that lean strongly in the direction of non-profit, for the public good, solidarity based.
Everyone gets insurane, it is mandatory (and a matter of fact, no one even thinks about it, OF COURSE everyone is insured, pays in when they have a job and gets treatment when needed.)
Contributions are known in advance and are income based, no or little payments when treatment is needed so no unexpected costs, or bankrupcies. No denial of coverage or treatment.
Some countries had just stopped being mortal enemies in 1945 - but on that they agreed: Healthcare cannot be handed over to the private for-profit sector.
The whole sector is mostly off-limits for investors.
All countries buil their own national system (so they differ). They are all much more cost-efficient, have better outcomes, and their citizens do not worry.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mbealhighjump I do not think it played that much a role, that Clyburn endorsed Biden. The Sanders campaign did not get out the non voters and the young (also not in S.C.) In 2016 the right wingers slandered his opponent (Hillary Clinton) he could take the high road. (He did not want that, it just happened to help him).
In 2020 he should have taken off the mittens. And I think the campaign preached to the choire (regarding the primaries). The young and nonvoters were not activated. Chuck Rocha did a great job with the Latinos and minority communities, but that did not work in the South. (In AZ the Lations came out for Sanders but that was not enough).
Either they did not believe Sanders was a good choice, or they could not be bothered. The brainwashed older black voters are beyond reach.
The fear campaign (Sanders cannot win in the general) worked. The contrary is true - Biden BARELY pulled it off, and only because Trump bungled the pandemic response so badly and was stupid enough to not insist on relief for the masses inearly fall (I think McConell wanted Trump gone, he stonewalled intentionally. He resigned himself to Biden, which would inherit the mess, Republicans could immediately start blaming Dems and could expect the feckless opportunists to not pull off a FDR.
So the Repubs would be back in the game in 2022 and 2024 - and Trump sidelined. I have seen an ad announed of The Lincoln Project: Mike Pence 2024 - a few days after inauguration. That's the Bush Republicans in action, they would be cool with Pence).
125,000 more votes in 4 states (that needed so long to be determined) and Biden absolutely needed 2 out of the 4. 2 in any combination were enough, but not less.
Won PA with 81,000 votes more - or AZ with 10,500, GA with 12,000 and WI with 20,700.
If Biden had won PA (the largest of the 4 states) that would not have been enough. (269 electors just shy of 1, a nightmare scenario). That could have gone easily in the other direction despite the 7 million more of the popular vote. (60 % in NY and 65% in CA help with that - but that does not win the Electoral College).
In the end Biden won PA with measly 1.3 % (or so) and WI with only 0.63 %. Both states should be solidly blue. And that was after 5 years of Trump in action and in the middle of the pandemic.
Sanders would have had SOLiD wins in PA, WI.
Also: Trump won Florida twice (1.2 and then over 3 %) and Ohio. 8 % (!) in 2016 and 2020. That's a solid win. Obama won FL and OH twice as well.
OH might have been in play for Sanders (with Nina Turner) and a believeable promise that TPP will NOT come. Biden could also not win Florida, not anymore than HRC - Sanders would at least have had a shot (with Nina again, and also AOC).
If Sanders had turned out YOUNG voters in SC and non-voters that do not listen to old Clyburn - I think Biden would have given up. Sanders did not need to win, just not lose by a high margin.
Biden not much later won states like Arkansas in a landslide and had not even campaigned there, or any groundgame. Decades of fawning of the media builds such a strong name recognition. And Sanders was too timid to take him out.
Warren took care of Bloomberg (which seemed also to be a threat in January and February, scary how his ad spending propped him up in the polls, U.S. voters are sheeple).
But Sanders sometimes talked about Biden as if he was on Biden's campaign. "Of course my friend Joe can win against Trump, ...."
People were for Biden for 2 reasons: can win against Trump and is a nice guy.
I disagree with both (w/o the pandemic Biden would have lost !) - but Sanders convinced voters that they were right with their assessment.
Nice older black lady. I like Sanders and his ideas, but this time it will be Biden, beating Trump is more important ....
It is not like Sanders needed to reinforce that !
3