US government shuts down after Congress fails to pass funding bill

[wpirobotbuilder]

If you've read my prior posts, you may see why I still consider ACA bad. If it does lead to lower costs, it will also lead to the problem my manager saw in the UK healthcare since that goes along with what allows lower costs. 

I am not a fan of insurance in any form. Healthcare is essentially that, but with a different name. 

I did find them, but reading them in the context of the surrounding ones is probably one of the biggest cases of TL;DR.

 

What was the problem in the UK?

 

EDIT: Turns out that post was quoted on this page. Lucky me!

 

Didn't realize that was a thing.

 

The NHS definitely makes care cheaper and affordable to everyone, which is good. But I don't have an immediate answer to that problem. I guess it relies on doctors doing their jobs for the purpose of helping people rather than making a profit, and those two interests can definitely come into conflict.

[Vitalius]

I did find them, but reading them in the context of the surrounding ones is probably one of the biggest cases of TL;DR.

 

What was the problem in the UK?

Essentially, NHR (the UK healthcare if I'm not mistaken) is great for people who have obvious problems. Broken leg, things of that nature, that can easily be diagnosed.

However, when it comes to things you need a lot of screening to find, such as cancer, it is bad. Finding cancer requires X-rays and other tests that are expensive. Because there is no idea of "profit", keeping costs down is preferred. People can go to doctors who will diagnose them with some easily treatable disease when they actually had some form of cancer which wasn't found until it was too late. 

That isn't a problem in the US healthcare system because they are out to make money. The more you spend (or rather, your insurance spends), the more they make so screening is much more frequent.

I'm not saying Doctors in the UK are bad or wtv, they aren't. They just don't go the extra mile to make sure their patients are healthy because it would cost them an ungodly amount of money to do this. This means cancers and such aren't caught in time and people die. This is where Kuzma's "horror stories" he mentions come from I think. 

That's the problem with purely government funded healthcare (the kind the UK has, again if I am not mistaken). Keeping costs down is a necessity, so sometimes people don't get the treatment they should. 

The problem with the US's healthcare system is that it is expensive. Very expensive. This is because of health insurance. If you pay with cash out of your pocket, you pay anywhere from 10-50% of what your insurer would pay. That is not an exaggeration. Any time I've seen the costs of insurance paying vs you paying cash, this is the case. 

If we went purely private and health insurance wasn't required the way it is now, I am willing to bet healthcare wouldn't be as expensive as it is now. However, that is a problem because healthcare is too precious to be purely private. Because there has to be a way for people to prove they can pay as soon as they need it since some situations require immediate care. 

So, in all honesty, none of the basic possible solutions are acceptable. Private can't work because then people would be denied healthcare when they can't prove they can pay. Government funded has the problem of people not getting screened enough, and the current system we have in the US causes it to be prohibitively expensive in some cases. 

You are right, it is a complex problem that needs a complex solution. But of the above, I don't find the UK or US system's acceptable. *sigh* 

[wpirobotbuilder]

Essentially, NHR (the UK healthcare if I'm not mistaken) is great for people who have obvious problems. Broken leg, things of that nature, that can easily be diagnosed.

However, when it comes to things you need a lot of screening to find, such as cancer, it is bad. Finding cancer requires X-rays and other tests that are expensive. Because there is no idea of "profit", keeping costs down is preferred. People can go to doctors who will diagnose them with some easily treatable disease when they actually had some form of cancer which wasn't found until it was too late. 

That isn't a problem in the US healthcare system because they are out to make money. The more you spend (or rather, your insurance spends), the more they make so screening is much more frequent.

I'm not saying Doctors in the UK are bad or wtv, they aren't. They just don't go the extra mile to make sure their patients are healthy because it would cost them an ungodly amount of money to do this. This means cancers and such aren't caught in time and people die. This is where Kuzma's "horror stories" he mentions come from I think. 

That's the problem with purely government funded healthcare (the kind the UK has, again if I am not mistaken). Keeping costs down is a necessity, so sometimes people don't get the treatment they should. 

The problem with the US's healthcare system is that it is expensive. Very expensive. This is because of health insurance. If you pay with cash out of your pocket, you pay anywhere from 10-50% of what your insurer would pay. That is not an exaggeration. Any time I've seen the costs of insurance paying vs you paying cash, this is the case. 

If we went purely private and health insurance wasn't required the way it is now, I am willing to bet healthcare wouldn't be as expensive as it is now. However, that is a problem because healthcare is too precious to be purely private. Because there has to be a way for people to prove they can pay as soon as they need it since some situations require immediate care. 

So, in all honesty, none of the basic possible solutions are acceptable. Private can't work because then people would be denied healthcare when they can't prove they can pay. Government funded has the problem of people not getting screened enough, and the current system we have in the US causes it to be prohibitively expensive in some cases. 

You are right, it is a complex problem that needs a complex solution. But of the above, I don't find the UK or US system's acceptable. *sigh* 

I did find the post  How often does the UK problem come up, where big diseases go untreated? If its a small portion of treatment cases then it might be a better system than the U.S. currently has.

 

But the U.K. also negotiates very aggressively with healthcare providers, drug manufacturers and medical device makers to keep prices low, and I believe doctors are under their umbrella of healthcare providers.

 

P.S.: It's the National Health Service?

[Vitalius]

I did find the post  How often does the UK problem come up, where big diseases go untreated? If its a small portion of treatment cases then it might be a better system than the U.S. currently has.

 

But the U.K. also negotiates very aggressively with healthcare providers, drug manufacturers and medical device makers to keep prices low, and I believe doctors are under their umbrella of healthcare providers.

 

P.S.: It's the National Health Service?

Ah, messed up the acronym. Sorry.

Well, from my manager's experience, Anyone who lives outside the US (and other developed countries) usually goes to the US for healthcare so long as they can afford it. I don't know the ratio of cases to which something is overlooked vs found, because it would be fairly difficult to measure such a value. However, I think the idea that people who want healthcare go to the US over most other countries is fairly telling so long as it's true. And my manager is the type of person to tell it straight (tell the truth). But take that as you will. 

[wpirobotbuilder]

You are right, it is a complex problem that needs a complex solution. But of the above, I don't find the UK or US system's acceptable. *sigh* 

Not only will it be a complex solution, but it won't be perfect either, and definitely will upset some people. Few solutions to everyday problems match all ideologies without conflict.

 

Whether it's perfect or acceptable is a subject of interesting debate, but a reasonable goal is to make it better every step of the way. The definition of "better" depends on personal beliefs, unfortunately.

 

I haven't seen the NHS firsthand, but I can agree that the US system isn't acceptable.

[DelFang]

...

If someone told me that if I paid, let's say, a 50% rate of tax they could guarantee me that no child anywhere in the world would go to bed hungry and they'd all have proper access to even basic health care I would jump at that, because I actually give a damn about people. You are being told that literally tens, even hundreds, of millions of YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS will have access to affordable health care, it will cost you almost nothing, it will save literally tens of thousands of lives every year and ensure that someone isn't put in a position of being made bankrupt because they or someone they loved became ill (by the way, the term "Medical bankruptcy" only exists in America) ...

Medical bankruptcy is not uncommon in China. Guess you're too "Western" to notice that.

 

Tis the freedom of 'Murica

 

Edit: Changed "American" to "Western" to suite broader audience.

[Vitalius]

Tis the freedom of 'Murica

The irony/clarity of that statement is ... just so great. I love it. Even if it's sad, in a good and bad way.

[MiracleMan]

Every time i try to get over my 'murican prejudices something like this happens

[RatedBlam]

In my opinion the answer to all these problems would be the collapse of the economy, it's an amazingly f*cked up sytem

[Vitalius]

In my opinion the answer to all these problems would be the collapse of the economy, it's an amazingly f*cked up sytem

This is also true. The only reason the wealthy can exist is because the poor exist. To eliminate poverty, you literally have to eliminate the wealthy. Good luck with that.

[RatedBlam]

This is also true. The only reason the wealthy can exist is because the poor exist. To eliminate poverty, you literally have to eliminate the wealthy. Good luck with that.

Yep. Maybe all the superpowers could combine their nukes and end this all just to be safe

[MrSuperb]

 

This is also true. The only reason the wealthy can exist is because the poor exist. To eliminate poverty, you literally have to eliminate the wealthy. Good luck with that.

 

No, you don't. There is no problem with having some people who are wealthier than others, the problem rather is that those wealthy get  wealthier and those less wealthy even poorer. This problem can be tackled by redistribution, but that is complelty against any imagination of the republicans (or also a lot of democrats), they want to get richer and richer.

[Vitalius]

No, you don't. There is no problem with having some people who are wealthier than others, the problem rather is that those wealthy get  wealthier and those less wealthy even poorer. This problem can be tackled by redistribution, but that is complelty against any imagination of the republicans (or also a lot of democrats), they want to get richer and richer.

But having a disparity of wealth inevitably leads to the problem situation of said disparity growing larger and larger. That is the nature of the problem. I mean, I agree with you, but at the same time, the process just keeps repeating itself. The wealthy get wealthier and the poor inevitably revolt. Look at the French Revolution. That's a poster child of the history this type of situation has. 

Obviously something as barbaric as the French Revolution won't be happening any time soon, but you get the overall idea. 

[Guest Gazzer96]

Typical, we've never really known how to run a country, this proves it to the world all over again.

Kinda the same way in the UK.

 

Our goverment are just plane stupid and short sighted.

[MrSuperb]

 

But having a disparity of wealth inevitably leads to the problem situation of said disparity growing larger and larger. That is the nature of the problem. I mean, I agree with you, but at the same time, the process just keeps repeating itself. The wealthy get wealthier and the poor inevitably revolt.

 

If there is a suitable system of redistriubtion of wealth in place, it shouldn't (or at least at a much slower rate than now).

[DelFang]

You were randomly breaking out insults against Britain for no reason other than to be racist.

How about you actually address the points I made or you admit your position is indefensible? 

Consider white Americans doesn't admit that they're descendent of European colonizers, I would say that calling RACISM is spot on.

 

What's more, GB should not be the one to get insults for the incompetence of the USA's government. Indeed, Britain didn't do so well for the last few years, but at least, the government weren't close down due to disagreement of 2 parties.

 

To think one man alone can cause problem at such scale, USA is indeed a wonderful place.

 

P.S.: USA =/= America. We don't call ourselves Kingdom just because we're UK.

[Vitalius]

P.S.: USA =/= America. We don't call ourselves Kingdom just because we're UK.

Yes, but in all fairness, it has been so prevalent that anyone should understand by now that when you say "Americans" you mean "Citizens of the United States". Whether that is right or not, debatable, but it is true. 

[DelFang]

You know what?

 

This is a great forum with people who are passionate about tech. If I offended you with that then I am sorry. Remember that saying of culture differences. Sometimes it's hard to forget that with the internet being as prevalent as it is. Technically it wasn't racism as I'm sure the more proper term for how you feel would be bigoted, but considering I actually add "u" to words and like some things from the UK, I don't exactly hate it or hate the citizens. Shoot, one of my closest friends is from Scotland.

 

We both are kinda acting like butts back and forth exchanging perspectives. LTT isn't the place for that. You get some likes and I get some likes, clearly there are members that see things from both our point of views. No reason for us to be hostile towards one another.

 

What do you say that we agree to disagree? I mean, we both agree that America's system is flawed. There is no denying that. It's frustrating being an American right now because of this. And I'm pretty sure this looks like some sort of twisted parade on your end just witnessing what's going on in my country..it's just eh, yeah.

 

So, truce?

Nooooooooo!! Please, reading you two debating has been my entertainment for the last hour, please for the sake of me, KEEP DEBATING.P

[DelFang]

Yep.

 

At this stage, I am certain both Democrats and Republicans are severely disappointed of their representatives in DC and I wouldn't blame them.

 

Doesn't the UK have a butt-load of parties?

Yes we do, but the Government is usually run by one of the major 3 parties, just don't ask me which 3.

[Vitalius]

Nooooooooo!! Please, reading you two debating has been my entertainment for the last hour, please for the sake of me, KEEP DEBATING.P

,,, Wait til you hit the massive walls of text I wrote. Have fun. Don't get lost.

[wpirobotbuilder]

,,, Wait til you hit the massive walls of text I wrote. Have fun. Don't get lost.

I rather liked our back and forth

 

Previous post...

 

Due to congressional district redrawing being done by both parties, it's easier for a politician of one party to win his election against an opponent from the opposite party. However, he has much more to fear from a primary challenger who is more left/right than himself, and therefore his opponent has a better chance of winning votes from among the now heavily democratic or republican districts. This drags both parties to the far left/right and is one of the main reasons for the emergence of the Tea Party's prominence in the Republican party as well as some more far-left Democrats.

 

The main problem is that because both parties are now more heavily ideological, they see the others as increasingly radical and extreme, which makes it difficult to compromise with them and difficult to listen to them.

Not really adding to the debate, but here's a link to the New York Times on the congressional redrawing of districts since 1992. The numbers are pretty interesting.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/as-swing-districts-dwindle-can-a-divided-house-stand/

[Vitalius]

I rather liked our back and forth

 

Not really adding to the debate, but here's a link to the New York Times on the congressional redrawing of districts since 1992. The numbers are pretty interesting.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/as-swing-districts-dwindle-can-a-divided-house-stand/

As did I.

I find that article very interesting. It made me consider what happens when swing districts (could possibly) disappear. What happens when a single part consistently wins election after election? We just become a 1 party nation? I can't imagine that'd be good as choice is always good. 

That also reminds me why I don't bother voting. I live in Texas. My vote means nothing. Mitt Romney was going to win my state regardless of who I voted for. 

I would almost call voting in general a farce if it weren't for the fact that the Electoral College has never gone against the public vote. If it did, even occasionally, I would consider my vote completely worthless. Even more so than it is now. 

... Seriously. It all just feels like a TV show. Not real. Unimportant. Like I have no control. Bah. 

[Slaeowulf]

Medical bankruptcy is not uncommon in China. Guess you're too "Western" to notice that.

 

Tis the freedom of 'Murica

 

Edit: Changed "American" to "Western" to suite broader audience.

 

 One truly hopes you're being ironic

[DelFang]

......

If a black person (I used black to eliminate the need to be redundant in words) ......

 

You see, that's the problem I have with USA culture: why would word "black" be an offensive word? What should I describe my black classmate's race in University? African-British? What if they're not British? Should I asking their nationality every time I meet new friend who is black?

 

If word "black" is indeed racially insensitive and offensive, then I shall declare that the word "yellow" is too, racially insensitive and offensive, because I'm an Asian, and my skin colour is yellow.

 

I wouldn't even tell you that during my time in secondary school, I insist my Muslim friends to call me "Chigga", since the N-word is such an forbidden word.

[wpirobotbuilder]

I find that article very interesting. It made me consider what happens when swing districts (could possibly) disappear. What happens when a single part consistently wins election after election? We just become a 1 party nation? I can't imagine that'd be good as choice is always good. 

Not necessarily one-party, but if the results of elections are always the same then it takes a very large group of voters changing their minds to change the political landscape. Regardless, it certainly can be bad.

 

I would almost call voting in general a farce if it weren't for the fact that the Electoral College has never gone against the public vote. If it did, even occasionally, I would consider my vote completely worthless. Even more so than it is now. 

But it has gone against the popular vote, if only 3 times, in 1876, 1888, and 2000. That's a small error rate (3/57 ~= 5%), but it shouldn't happen at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Irrelevancy_of_national_popular_vote (search for "Irrelevancy of national popular vote")