28 Feb 2022, 3:18 pm
28 Feb 2022, 3:18 pm
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,228
Location: Right over your left shoulder
28 Feb 2022, 3:25 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
28 Feb 2022, 6:24 pm
Our socialized single payer healthcare here in BC isn’t perfect, but I prefer it over the much more expensive option of private healthcare that’s really only truly any good for very wealthy people.
The USA is a prime example of how you can pay a lot more money to receive comparable care in a fragmented administrative cost heavy system.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
28 Feb 2022, 7:23 pm
28 Feb 2022, 7:43 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
28 Feb 2022, 8:02 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
The truth of the matter is, conservatives here in America who oppose universal health care believe poor people don't contribute and so don't deserve free medical care. Hardheartedness is the actual barrier to healthcare for all Americans.
This. Thanks to years of defunding public education And promoting "rugged self reliance," American conservative voters have been conned into voting against their best interests in order to protect corporate & Billionaire interests. It's sad, really.
I'd really like to see the American left do some sort of ad campaign about healthcare suggesting that "If Canadians can have it, we deserve the same or better!" vs. the same ol' same ol'.. but corporate Democrats aren't much different than conservatives when it comes to protecting business interests over citizens' health & well being.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.28 Feb 2022, 8:46 pm
01 Mar 2022, 11:49 am
01 Mar 2022, 1:56 pm
01 Mar 2022, 2:05 pm
02 Mar 2022, 2:56 pm
02 Mar 2022, 3:10 pm
ToughDiamond wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
There needs to be socialist healthcare that is high quality. That is the solution.
Agreed. The biggest problem the UK NHS has is that government refuses to tax the wealthy in order to fund it properly. Their "solutions" to underfunding include gradual privatisation, rather non-progressive National Insurance contribution increases, a NHS levy on ordinary pensioners, and organising silly "clap for the NHS" rituals.
Meanwhile in the USA, my mother-in-law has just been told that she can only have home-help visits if she buys them herself (the prices aren't affordable) or stops chemotherapy for her cancer. Don't grow old in the USA unless you're affluent.
It is disgusting.
We need a proletariat revolution of the working class, within a democratic framework.
02 Mar 2022, 3:16 pm
blitzkrieg wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It’s not super easy to analyse the data (it is only available in pdf form for some reason) but it looks to me like, if anything, London gets *less* NHS money per capita than the North East and Yorkshire.
Scotland gets more per capita than England because the allocation of government money between the countries depends on something called the Barnett formula, a convention for working out the block grant paid to Scottish government based on government spending in England. Due to misestimates of the size of the Scottish population when this convention started, Scotland historically had budgets that were “too high”. The existing budgets aren’t corrected, but the adjustments are, so Scotland’s budget isn’t going up as quickly as England’s.
Also, Scotland does now set its own rates of income tax, which are generally slightly higher than in England and Wales.
Scotland gets more per capita than England because the allocation of government money between the countries depends on something called the Barnett formula, a convention for working out the block grant paid to Scottish government based on government spending in England. Due to misestimates of the size of the Scottish population when this convention started, Scotland historically had budgets that were “too high”. The existing budgets aren’t corrected, but the adjustments are, so Scotland’s budget isn’t going up as quickly as England’s.
Also, Scotland does now set its own rates of income tax, which are generally slightly higher than in England and Wales.
I mentioned Scotland get more spent per capita (per head) than England does, as a population.
I said London = money, I didn't mention per capita measures in relation to London.
London gets way more govermental funding for businesses, more private sector investment, more taxes overall spent on the city of London, more tax breaks for the rich folk in London, a better rent economy relative to the cost of house prices in London... you get the idea.
Regardless of per capita spending (London is the biggest city in England, so if viewed through a lens of per capita, it is at a disadvantage in terms of spending...) - it is where all the money is, as a city.
Almost everyone knows this.
Rent is not more affordable in London
It's misleading to use measures of government spending that don't adjust for population size. Why use spending per head for Scotland compared to England, but not comparing London to the rest of England?
Yes, there is lots of money in London, but that isn't relevant to the state of the NHS.
02 Mar 2022, 3:28 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It’s not super easy to analyse the data (it is only available in pdf form for some reason) but it looks to me like, if anything, London gets *less* NHS money per capita than the North East and Yorkshire.
Scotland gets more per capita than England because the allocation of government money between the countries depends on something called the Barnett formula, a convention for working out the block grant paid to Scottish government based on government spending in England. Due to misestimates of the size of the Scottish population when this convention started, Scotland historically had budgets that were “too high”. The existing budgets aren’t corrected, but the adjustments are, so Scotland’s budget isn’t going up as quickly as England’s.
Also, Scotland does now set its own rates of income tax, which are generally slightly higher than in England and Wales.
Scotland gets more per capita than England because the allocation of government money between the countries depends on something called the Barnett formula, a convention for working out the block grant paid to Scottish government based on government spending in England. Due to misestimates of the size of the Scottish population when this convention started, Scotland historically had budgets that were “too high”. The existing budgets aren’t corrected, but the adjustments are, so Scotland’s budget isn’t going up as quickly as England’s.
Also, Scotland does now set its own rates of income tax, which are generally slightly higher than in England and Wales.
I mentioned Scotland get more spent per capita (per head) than England does, as a population.
I said London = money, I didn't mention per capita measures in relation to London.
London gets way more govermental funding for businesses, more private sector investment, more taxes overall spent on the city of London, more tax breaks for the rich folk in London, a better rent economy relative to the cost of house prices in London... you get the idea.
Regardless of per capita spending (London is the biggest city in England, so if viewed through a lens of per capita, it is at a disadvantage in terms of spending...) - it is where all the money is, as a city.
Almost everyone knows this.
Rent is not more affordable in London
It's misleading to use measures of government spending that don't adjust for population size. Why use spending per head for Scotland compared to England, but not comparing London to the rest of England?
Yes, there is lots of money in London, but that isn't relevant to the state of the NHS.
I never stated that rent was more affordable in London. Rent is unaffordable everywhere in England, relative to the general economies of the north, the midlands or the south, if a person wishes to have a decent standard of living.
I said that the rent economy is good (in London) relative to house prices.
For example, if you pay £683 per calendar month, as part of a three bedroom house rent-share in London, and the house price of that house is £375,000. You would be getting a better deal than paying £375 per calendar month for a room in a house that is worth £150,000 in the north.
That's what I am talking about, girlfriend.
I have literally just explained exactly what I meant regarding per capita spending. Clearly you are not understanding my posts.
Last edited by blitzkrieg on 02 Mar 2022, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
02 Mar 2022, 3:33 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello, WP world! |
30 Jun 2026, 4:12 pm |
| Are there a lot of crazy people in this world? |
11 Jul 2026, 4:07 pm |
