Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "NowThis Impact" channel.

  1. 26
  2. 22
  3. 20
  4. 16
  5. 11
  6. 9
  7. Tories have defunded the NHS for the last 10 years. the U.S. spent 10,260 USD per person in 2017 (all ages, healthy or not, with or w/o insurance or adequate care). Most wealthy nations spend 49 - 54 % of that, only a few outliers. Like Germany with 56 %. Or the U.K. with only 42 %. Of course most of that spending is done via the NHS. The private insurance / doctor visits that are meanwhile more common / necessary drive the "national per capita healthcare spending" up. If the NHS would be properly funded they could provide better services and the non-profits are always more cost efficients than the for-profits when it comes to healthcare (globally - because "free market" and "competition" does not work for healthcare). France, Australia, are around 49 %, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands 54 % ... you get the idea. With proper funding the NHS could run like a charm, and many middle / upper class people would drop their private insurance - why pay extra, when "free at the point of service" is good and there are no long wait times. Wages are the most important cost factor, the underfunding means understaffing. The stress drives the nurses and doctors away. Good luck if the U.S. would need more staff under Medicare for All and would start hiring and giving out visas. (there is no language barrier, and adusting them to the U.S. specifics of delivering care would not take long). The NHS loses 10 % of nurses every year, that explains the promises of the Tories before the Dec. 2019 election (of course with misleading numbers: they promised to incentivize many nurses to not leave - I think the number was 19,000 - and those were then counted as ADDITIONAL nurses. They were asked on TV about it, it was absurd). If after 70 years all wealthy nations land within a range of spending (and there are legitimate reasons for having higher spending, the most important is AGE of the population) - one can assume that a first world country that spends half of what the U.S. spends per person should be able to have a good system. USD 5,500 - Take or leave 400 - 500 dollars (the international comparsions are made in USD). And that 42 % is just not enough. (data Kaiser Foundation 2017 - also see World Bank).
    9
  8. 8
  9. 7
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25.  @nadiaw978  2 of my younger sisters used new types of cloth diapers (to spare the landfill, and local government gives subsidies to buy the initial sets. They exchanged them, one was lucky and got a set secondhand (they are sold online, they do not offer them in retail it is a NICHE product). I doubt they sell what they used to have back in the day, when many still used cloth diapers. and it must be GOOD cotton quality to absorb liquid. Plus at the minimum a plastic cover panty to hold the cloth in place. And let's face it: they are not as good as the single use throw away. Which is less important if you are at home with the child - but not if the little one is in childcare where they expect diapers that LAST. Plus they make a fuller "figure" so the usual garments may not fit anymore (read more costs - well she might have garments from the siblings). When my sisters had a long day and were out of the house with the little ones - both were stay at home mums in the first years - they used the throw away diapers because they protected better. So at family meetings the toddlers had the elegant and slim "single use diaper silhouette" ;) It am all for using the sets with the washable diapers because the throw away produce so much waste - but now it is not a good time to change mid-race. If that woman has a lot going on (mum of four, now the kids may be at home, maybe a job, or other duties for elderly relatives ...) You should wash them hot, so you need a supply. Then there are the more convient SETS they have now, but you must invest in those. And of course all the washing.
    3
  26. 3
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. You are factually incorrect, the fabric (even DIY sewn masks) do prevent the particles, the mask producers have to do testing to prove the efficacy of masks that are sold as PPE (also against dust, chemicals or other germs). And they were so kind to even test materials for DIY masks. See the website of smartairfilters(dot) com Not sure if links are allowed by this channel, so replace the dot with . in order to have a link. They have an article on materials for DIY masks, from spring or early summer 2020. I was surprised how good the (theoretical) protection is. Theoretical because gaps dramatically reduce effectiveness that is much more important than the material used. And the lawmakers and producers cannot control how the masks are worn: If you wear them in a sloppy manner to be defiant, or to avoid fogging of glasses, better fit around the nose would solve that - or to breathe more easily. A president that leads by example and that explains it to the masses and a unified message would have helped with that. So it is possible that the Asian countries get more out of mask wearing because the population is disciplined and are told to wear WELL fitting masks. Trump could have positioned himself as leader in difficult times and as someone to follow. But he ran in 2016 as "outsider" and rebel. That is harder to pull off as sitting president, so he had to find another wedge issue to get people riled up (people that are very willing to be riled up anyway). And his PERSONAL VANITY was also in the way of modeling mask wearing and mask information and messaging (Dr. Fauci could not overcome that the president was not on board. Dr. Birx said she and her aide were the only ones that wore masks IN the White House.) I mean - Trump could have worn a better fitting bandana from April 2020 on (when the masks were recommended) and look badass. (or better not: even bandana is better than no mask, but it is significantly less effective. But I am sure they could have sown cool well fitting masks for the president). One of the recommendations of smartairfilter (dot) com was to use 2 layers of cut up T-Shirt material (cotton or a blend with mainly cotton) - that was a good compromise between comfort (ease to breathe) and protection.
    2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2