Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

U.S.A Vs U.K. Which is better?

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 9:04am

pickpocket

pickpocket

3,397 posts

On the other hand, there is more homicide in th u.s.a.

Bigger population+bad economy+increase in illegal immigrants=more homicide
I would have to say U.S.A, simply because I have never been to England. Naturally, I would chose U.S.A.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 9:15am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

Bigger population+bad economy+increase in illegal immigrants=more homicide

England has a crappier economy. It too has many illegal immigrants, leading to the formation of more nationalist parties/groups, such as the BNP and EDL.

At any rate, per capita, the UK has around 4 times less a homicide rate.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 9:48am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,535 posts

yet the UK is a more liberal country and is still a democracy with an elected government.

Except...UK is a Constitutional Monarchy

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 10:03am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

Except...UK is a Constitutional Monarchy

Constitutional monarchy means little. The monarch has almost zero real power. It's far better to describe it as a democracy with a Parliamentary, Westminster system.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 12:42pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Um yes it is. The NHS provides a healthcare service free of charge. There are other options if you want a higher standard of healthcare, for that you have to pay.

There's no such thing as free healthcare - maybe you don't have to pay for it, but the service is going to be crap and there's no guarantee that you'll even GET service - if there's an epidemic or emergency, you can be sure that your free healthcare won't be holding you up - else, if you're lucky, not many other people will.

And besides, you're probably paying for it one way or another - the money for it has to come from somewhere, and if it's funded by the government, that means that some of your taxes would be going to it, so no, it's not very free.

Except...UK is a Constitutional Monarchy

Isn't it technically an oligarchy? Or has that changed?

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 12:45pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

Isn't it technically an oligarchy? Or has that changed?

No....I don't know where you get such ideas from. The aristocrats only have the House of Lords, and even then, they're going to curtail the power.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 1:34pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

And besides, you're probably paying for it one way or another - the money for it has to come from somewhere, and if it's funded by the government, that means that some of your taxes would be going to it, so no, it's not very free.

TANSTAAFL anyone? There aint' no such thing as a free lunch.
What is better, having a percentage of your pay taken away so that, if you get sick or injure yourself, it costs almost nothing, or paying through the nose for healthcare that many cannot afford?
But, I direct you people to a speech made by President Michael Higgins of Ireland against Michael Graham, Tea-Party supporter:
You have to love Mr Higgins

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 1:36pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

TANSTAAFL anyone? There aint' no such thing as a free lunch.
What is better, having a percentage of your pay taken away so that, if you get sick or injure yourself, it costs almost nothing, or paying through the nose for healthcare that many cannot afford?
But, I direct you people to a speech made by President Michael Higgins of Ireland against Michael Graham, Tea-Party supporter:

Course there's gonna be a tax. But I'll rather a floor, than not having a floor.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 3:07pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

What is better, having a percentage of your pay taken away so that, if you get sick or injure yourself, it costs almost nothing, or paying through the nose for healthcare that many cannot afford?

Which is better: getting sick and dieing (or if you're 'lucky', living painfully), or getting sick and dieing? Choose carefully...

Even if you have 'free' healthcare, the care will be crap. Consider this: you have an illness that could not be considered lethal or fatal in any way, but it does limit your activity - say, intense chronic migranes. Your employer is worried that you cannot perform your job well enough, and so you are at risk losing your job. You can't do any task for long periods of time at the risk of messing up what you were working on by accident. Keep in mind these migranes aren't suddenly appearing - you've had them since you were a child, but you're so used to them that you hardly notice them. They've been getting worse recently, though, and your co-workers finally convince you to go to the doctor. Unfortunately for you, it's sick season, so there are a lot more people who are in danger of losing their lives - sad for them, but in the meantime, you might not see the doctor for another few weeks, and there's no guarantee that he'll give you the right prescription - after all, it is free healthcare, so the service is a bit crappy. It gives you little chance to prosper.

I could go a while into finances, but I'll just say that if you stay out of debt, work about a $14,784 annual income (at $7, 40 hours a week) and pay all of your taxes, save up 40% of what's left for emergencies (enough to pay for average health insurance premiums) along with all the other expenses, you should be able to survive. That's with a wage lower than most minimums at state level in the US, and you might be able to pull a part-time job beside, depending on how much sleep you want to get at night.

As far as I've understood health insurance and healthcare, whether you're rich or you're poor, you still pay roughly the same amount. While with insurance you pay less when it comes to bills, you're roughly paying the same, or even more, depending - you still have to pay the health insurance every month to be insured, and the company takes massive interest on it. When you're in an emergency, the company will pay off the majority of the bill with what you paid them collectively in the past. That's also how the company earns their own income - they just 'take' whatever you haven't hurt. Some companies - actually, a lot of them might do this - examine peoples' profiles and decide if it would be worth taking them - they don't want someone who will be costing them lots of money, so they only take people who take life safe and have very little medical problems. Anyways, the rich might seem to be paying a lot less up front, but in reality they're paying about the same when counting interest.

'Cheap' things are expensive: another perspective on finances - while unrelated to health care; just trying to get my point across -  would be mortgage. For a mortgage amount of $225,000 at 7%, you have two choices for paying off. First is a 30-year mortgage at $1,349 a month. Second is a 15-year mortgage at $1,899 a month. An extra $550 a month! That's a lot of money. You only want to pay what you have to, right? Well, at the end of the 15-year mortgage you'll have paid $341,762, over $100,000 more than the mortgage amount was! Thank goodness you weren't paying as much with the 30-year mortgage... Oh wait. At $1,349 a month, over 30 years you would be paying $485,636, which is over twice what the mortgage amount was. Dang. Anyways, I was just trying to point out that cheaper isn't always... Cheaper. Personally, I don't think that paying 'nothing' for national crapcare would be worth it. Just my opinion, though. Some might think otherwise.

 

Posted Nov 28, '12 at 6:46pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

maybe you don't have to pay for it, but the service is going to be crap and there's no guarantee that you'll even GET service

since it gets paid for one way or the other.
the service you get is not less because you pay nothing.

anyway in usa there is also no guarantee.
if you break your leg and you can't pay for a fix. then you simple do not get a fix. whit the probablity of becoming handicaped the rest of your life. simple because you dont have the money.
in uk they atleast fix it. a bad fix is better then no fix at all, in my opinion.

 
Reply to U.S.A Vs U.K. Which is better?

You must be logged in to post a reply!