Sweden the only country with Correct Approach to CVD-19

Page 3 of 10 [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,662

04 May 2020, 6:03 am

goldfish21 wrote:
As for the uber rich all of the sudden voluntarily becoming altruistic philanthropists: Nooooope, never gonna happen. Heads would have to start hitting the floor before people in their class might start choosing to support society instead of continuing their sick game of extracting as much wealth from it as possible..


I doubt guillotining the ultra rich would be of any benefit given their investments/corporations keep food on our tables. Whether we like it or not we rely on these people and their money.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,454
Location: Queens, NYC

04 May 2020, 6:07 am

Both exploitation and philanthropy occur from amongst the rich.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,976
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

04 May 2020, 6:12 am

cyberdad wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
As for the uber rich all of the sudden voluntarily becoming altruistic philanthropists: Nooooope, never gonna happen. Heads would have to start hitting the floor before people in their class might start choosing to support society instead of continuing their sick game of extracting as much wealth from it as possible..


I doubt guillotining the ultra rich would be of any benefit given their investments/corporations keep food on our tables. Whether we like it or not we rely on these people and their money.


We rely on consumers consuming for ya to get paid our pittance. Billionaires rely on our labour to produce their wealth. They need us more than we need them. It’s high time they get cut out of the loop.

It’s nice to see things like cooperatives and socially conscious B corps and non profits etc filling niches where greed has gone too far.

Maybe we’ll see a more rapid shift away from people being brainwashed into believing we need to sweat to maintain the bank accounts of the Billionaire class when this is all over.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,620

04 May 2020, 8:59 am

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/coron ... index.html
NYC has had difficulty just keeping up with the people that have passed away.
This suggests a lack of infrastructure.

Makes one wonder about less obvious issues like medical supplies and equipment.

Uh, a dozen people at your care home are seriously ill. Uh, the line seems to be disconnected.
Too bad I didn't get the address of that care home... Sometimes there are communication issues in a crisis.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,662

04 May 2020, 7:39 pm

BTDT wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/coronavirus-funerals-bodies/index.html
NYC has had difficulty just keeping up with the people that have passed away.
This suggests a lack of infrastructure..


What it suggests is that the US has never invested enough in the public health system with it's reluctance to embrace free healthcare for all. NY is reaping that lack of infrastructure development in hospitals so there is a link.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 575
Location: Melbourne, Australia

04 May 2020, 8:33 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
As for the uber rich all of the sudden voluntarily becoming altruistic philanthropists: Nooooope, never gonna happen. Heads would have to start hitting the floor before people in their class might start choosing to support society instead of continuing their sick game of extracting as much wealth from it as possible..


I doubt guillotining the ultra rich would be of any benefit given their investments/corporations keep food on our tables. Whether we like it or not we rely on these people and their money.


We rely on consumers consuming for ya to get paid our pittance. Billionaires rely on our labour to produce their wealth. They need us more than we need them. It’s high time they get cut out of the loop.

It’s nice to see things like cooperatives and socially conscious B corps and non profits etc filling niches where greed has gone too far.

Maybe we’ll see a more rapid shift away from people being brainwashed into believing we need to sweat to maintain the bank accounts of the Billionaire class when this is all over.


Strangely enough, there are people who want to go back to work, rather than rely on welfare.

While some people are happy to sit at home having others provide for them while they can follow their dreams to be a writer, painter, etc., there are many more who would rather be able to work, and so not be a burden on their community. Additionally, a large number of those wanting to go back to work would be the extraverts, who "need" the social side of their work for their own mental health.

I also see very few billionaires owning small restaurants or stores, yet it is the people who work in these places who have been hit hardest by the shutdown, being unable to "work from home". During the shutdown, it is more likely that the people who work for the "Billionaires" have been able to continue working (either from home, in the case of office staff, or in the warehouses, shipping items), assisting them even more at the expence of the small, family owned businesses, who are being forced to close and don't have the funds/capacity to support their staff.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,976
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

04 May 2020, 8:42 pm

:roll:

People like me aren’t sitting home because we prefer welfare. If that were the case we’d never work the 6-7 days a week we normally do in order to earn what we need & want. We’re staying home because we believe in science and want to ensure it’s safe to return to work before we do. We’re smart, not lazy.

Further to that, this couple months of unemployment insurance benefits is MY MONEY that I’ve paid into insurance for for years and almost never collected in my life.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,662

04 May 2020, 9:04 pm

Brictoria wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
As for the uber rich all of the sudden voluntarily becoming altruistic philanthropists: Nooooope, never gonna happen. Heads would have to start hitting the floor before people in their class might start choosing to support society instead of continuing their sick game of extracting as much wealth from it as possible..


I doubt guillotining the ultra rich would be of any benefit given their investments/corporations keep food on our tables. Whether we like it or not we rely on these people and their money.


We rely on consumers consuming for ya to get paid our pittance. Billionaires rely on our labour to produce their wealth. They need us more than we need them. It’s high time they get cut out of the loop.

It’s nice to see things like cooperatives and socially conscious B corps and non profits etc filling niches where greed has gone too far.

Maybe we’ll see a more rapid shift away from people being brainwashed into believing we need to sweat to maintain the bank accounts of the Billionaire class when this is all over.


Strangely enough, there are people who want to go back to work, rather than rely on welfare.

While some people are happy to sit at home having others provide for them while they can follow their dreams to be a writer, painter, etc., there are many more who would rather be able to work, and so not be a burden on their community. Additionally, a large number of those wanting to go back to work would be the extraverts, who "need" the social side of their work for their own mental health.

I also see very few billionaires owning small restaurants or stores, yet it is the people who work in these places who have been hit hardest by the shutdown, being unable to "work from home". During the shutdown, it is more likely that the people who work for the "Billionaires" have been able to continue working (either from home, in the case of office staff, or in the warehouses, shipping items), assisting them even more at the expence of the small, family owned businesses, who are being forced to close and don't have the funds/capacity to support their staff.


Agree with this...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 575
Location: Melbourne, Australia

04 May 2020, 9:17 pm

cyberdad wrote:
BTDT wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/coronavirus-funerals-bodies/index.html
NYC has had difficulty just keeping up with the people that have passed away.
This suggests a lack of infrastructure..


What it suggests is that the US has never invested enough in the public health system with it's reluctance to embrace free healthcare for all. NY is reaping that lack of infrastructure development in hospitals so there is a link.


The problem is that, using Australia's system as an example of a "good" health system, it is the states who are responsible for hospitals, ambulance services, etc. with federal governemnt covering other aspects, whereas those who think the US should emulate the Australian healthcare system ignore/are unaware of this, and instead seek to have their national government take on both the state and federal roles from the Australian system.

It's no good saying that a nation "should" have something when their governemnt structure and laws are not designed to allow the implementation of it, and it is possible that the costs (financial, legal, etc.) involved in changing the laws (if possible) would far outweigh the benefits from the changes (I could be wrong, but I understand that the worst hit states already have much higher debt levels than those less impacted by this virus, so it is unlikely that they would have had the funds to be able to implement something like Australia's hospital system where it was needed anyway).



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,662

04 May 2020, 9:59 pm

I accept the US is never going to adopt healthcare policy emulating either Australia or Sweden. A larger population with greater number of states means a stronger devolution of state powers and more obstacles to getting a unified approach.

Conversely Singapore and NZ are able to implement policies within their nation states that are admirable but not possible for Australia to emulate again because difference of scale/jurisdiction and central power.

However we are living under new global conditions that potentially may never be permanently resolved due to the root cause not being addressed (China is not going to listen to outsiders). Under these conditions the lack of public infrastructure spending on public hospitals to cope with swelling numbers of Covid-19 cases also needs to be addressed.

You need to strike a balance between competing agendas.



fluffysaurus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,655
Location: England

05 May 2020, 7:51 am

Brictoria wrote:
While some people are happy to sit at home having others provide for them while they can follow their dreams to be a writer,
:lol: :lol: :lol:



fluffysaurus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,655
Location: England

05 May 2020, 8:06 am

Aren't nearly all of us doing the herd thing anyway but no one wants to admit it, except the Swedes. It's out there and the only thing guvs can do at this point is slow it down to not overwhelm health services. We're beyond stopping it, that means that all areas will be covered sooner or later. If this was not accepted by governments then Italy would remain on lockdown and the UK would have gone into full lockdown (witch it hasn't done). Between Swedish standoffishness and Swedish health system and less population density they didn't feel they needed strict rules (there are some rules in Sweden) for Covid to cross Sweden at a speed they can manage.

As well as not wanting this to spread too quickly I believe governments are also calculating the problems of it spreading too slowly. It's easier to persuade the elderly ect. to stay indoors for months than years.

When it has passed through areas such as the UK what then for those nations that did stop it. How will travel between for example the UK and New Zealand be affected? Possibly the vax will make this question redundant but we need to address the lack of an organised integrated response to what has been a global problem before the next one.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,976
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

05 May 2020, 11:58 am

The reason the USA doesn’t have Canadian UK or Australian style healthcare isn’t because it’s too difficult to administer. It’s because the health insurance industry makes ungodly amounts of money in the USA and they don’t want to give that pure profit middle man money up, pure and simple.

And of course there are savings to be had. The US healthcare system costs 4x as much to administer per capita than Canada’s: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... yer-system

It has nothing to do with difficulty of administration. Either method is completely scalable. Insurance companies in America refuse to give up their piece of the pie that they never should have had in the first place. It really is that simple.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 575
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 May 2020, 7:36 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
The reason the USA doesn’t have Canadian UK or Australian style healthcare isn’t because it’s too difficult to administer. It’s because the health insurance industry makes ungodly amounts of money in the USA and they don’t want to give that pure profit middle man money up, pure and simple.

And of course there are savings to be had. The US healthcare system costs 4x as much to administer per capita than Canada’s: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... yer-system

It has nothing to do with difficulty of administration. Either method is completely scalable. Insurance companies in America refuse to give up their piece of the pie that they never should have had in the first place. It really is that simple.


I don't recall anyone saying anything about administration or related costs...The reasons previously stated were financial - each state would need to build and fit-out multiple new hospitals (including land costs and staffing) and legal - The laws/regulations in the USA (and each of its states).

Insurance companies still exists in most countries, as do private hospitals. In Australia we have both public and private hospitals, along with private health insurance.

To implement a similar system in the USA would likely require many laws to be changed across national, state, and local governments - You would first need the citizens and all regions of each state to agree to have the local health departments\services merge into a statewide health department\service. I'm fairly sure if people could put together a logical, coherent argument for this ("the health insurance industry makes ungodly amounts of money in the USA and they don’t want to give that pure profit middle man money up" would seem to fail on this count) then it is possible that laws there could change, but you need to take into consideration the potential number of laws/regulations that would need to be changed (and to try to mitigate unintended consequences of changing any of these), so it is not something that could happen overnight.

Alternatively, I don't know whether there is anything to prevent a local governement in the USA from building and staffing their own hospital, funded through local rates, and offering free cover to citizens of the locality, while charging others for use of the services. One locality doing this might influence neighbouring local governments to emulate it, eventually spreading across the nation. After all, It's no good blaming the national government for something when even small communities aren't interested/willing to take action themselves.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,976
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

06 May 2020, 12:57 am

We have private insurance coverages here in Canada, too. I have Blue Cross extended benefits through my Union. There are very few private hospitals and surgical centres though, afaik anyways.

There are other reasons the USA doesn’t have healthcare beside the insurance industry lobbying the government and the government lying to people and telling them universal healthcare is socialism (true) and socialism is bad! (Fake news - socialized medicine is one of the greatest things many countries have.) There’s also an strong element of the wealthy wanting to have theirs (healthcare) while withholding it form the poor. (mostly non whites.) Can’t hang onto white privilege if you go around treating everyone equally!

Back on track: Sweden is well within the top 10 worst C-19 death rate countries in the world. Why would anyone consider them to have the correct approach that should be emulated? :?


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,662

06 May 2020, 1:45 am

goldfish21 wrote:
Back on track: Sweden is well within the top 10 worst C-19 death rate countries in the world. Why would anyone consider them to have the correct approach that should be emulated? :?


How about the Swedes themselves? they opted for this approach and their economy is in much better state and their people are much happier than their neighbors.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/04/21/ana ... f-covid-19