Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TikindiDragon

  1. Oh goodness no, not with the amount of training they have. Pay for Consultants starts at £75k per annum in the UK, and can rise to just over £100k (That's starting at $120k and rising to $160k if the comparison helps). It's a little more complex to say exactly how much a GP earns (it can depend on the type of contract they have with the NHS, how the practise is set up etc) but GPs can be earning between £54k and £81k. Teachers, OTOH, are around the £22k - £31k mark. Please also bear in mind that Tuition fees are capped in the UK (I think currently at £9000 a year) - so no degree will cost the student or their family more than that (although living expenses are obviously not included). Our Doctors aren't starting their life with the same insane amounts of debt some of yours are.
  2. Potted version is - the healthcare actually provided in the US is below the standard of that provided in countries with Nationalised Healthcare, so US Doctors aren't quite the Gold Standard your Mum probably thinks they are.
  3. Eh, it's not up to voters to decide whether or not something is unconstitutional though, is it? That's the role of the Supreme Court. I've also noticed that there's more of a tendancy in US politics to decide that something must be unconstitutional because people don't like it, rather than decide they don't like something because they think it may be unconstitutional. It's effectively an attempt to prove that the bias they already hold is backed up by the Constitution, and some of the logic involved in doing so can get very twisted (actually like your medical example - which would be directly in *violation* of the 1st Amendment to provide something faith-based as a government service. See bans on prayers in public schools as further example.). Just as many people in the US would not consider a UHC system unconstitutional because they support it to start with. Which boils down to - arguing about whether it is Constitutional or not is a bad arguement, because as a general rule if a person can be persuaded to see how much of a benefit it could bring to the country then they'd stop seeing it as un-Constitutional. Unless you can point me to a person whos *only* objection to the idea is that it's un-Constitutional, and at that point you'd argue that the legislation should be drawn up anyway and given to the experts (the Supreme Court) to make that judgement.
  4. Pretty sure you need to pay internet bill as well as the subscription on consoles too. I wouldn't know as I never online game on consoles. Not worth the subscription fee for how little I'd use it. Even most MMOs are free-to-play now. There's only a handful of subscription-only holdouts (I think 15?).
  5. @Kyrieath - are you seriously suggesting that it's the First Amendment that would make Universal Healthcare an impossibility in the US? Really? Something else I might be able to take you seriously on, but there is no single part of the first Amendment that could possibly deal with healthcare - and as recently as 2000 the Supreme Court has applied the 'Lemon test' to discern if something is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.
  6. Thanks! I think he's gorgeous, but then I am a little biased. Although he did qualify for Crufts, so maybe not so much... If you ever want to go "aaaargh, help!" at someone that's been there, done that with a Lab, feel free to shoot me a PM.
  7. That's just it - government officials have no say in specific NHS care. There's no government official saying 'treat this person, not that person'. All the government does is set the budget, and the *Doctors* decide which are the most urgent cases. In the UK the government doesn't decide who to treat, the doctors do - in the US the doctors have to decide based on who can pay for it. In the UK the person with the more acute problem would get priority treatment, in the US they'd only get treated if they could prove they had insurance cover. Your current system is not only the most expensive, but also provides some of the worst care in the western world. There's a really, really good reason it's looked down upon by *everyone* outside the US. And, as it happens, I've enough folks in the US (including an Aunt that's a Nurse, an Uncle that's an Army Dentist, and a cousin that's a radiographer) to know about the US healthcare system in slightly more depth than you think. I've spent a lot of tiem in the US. Compared to Europe? Your system sucks. Massively. The US treats on ability to pay, not on need. Doesn't matter if you've got a nasty cancer, if you don't qualify for Medicaid and your insurance won't cover it (or you don't have insurance) you're screwed. Ever heard of medical bankruptcy? Not at all uncommon in the States, practically unheard of this side of the pond. Health insurance companies are making billions of dollars of profit in the US - and one of the reasons that your government spending is so high is beacuae the government is paying for health insurace (and associated premiums) rather than directly paying hospitals for the treatment. I've also seen it happen (time and time again) that when something is being charged to insurance the cost of it is put up. So the cost to an insurance company is much higher than it would be if charged to the individual. Step one in reducing your government spend would be to eliminate the middle man - getting rid of the insurance companies and having the government pay hospitals directly. Another big problem is that drug companies are allowed to market directly to consumers, and drugs are not bought on massive wholesale levels. The NHS can negotiate lower prices because they're buying such large quantities of various drugs - individual hospitals don't have that kind of power. And because drug companies in the US are paying for expensive advertising they need to charge more to get their money back. It's not rocket science, and it doesn't take a genius to see how one thing effects another. But to solve it *does* effectively require re-starting the system from scratch. Trying to use public money to pay for the system as it currently works is only going to be expensive, and inefficient. The benefits though, well... Imagine how much less it would cost a company if it didn't have to pay health insurance for all it's employees. Profits would rise (which means the taxes they paid would also rise, but not by as much as costs had gone down). It would be possible to pay better wages. The private sector (with the obvious exception of the health insurance companies themselves) would benefit. Through paying doctors & hospitals directly, rather than through a middle man, government costs go down. Which means either a) taxes could be lowers, or the money saved could be spent on improving the system and building more hospitals. Through large collective bargaining power drugs could be bought cheaper, which would also bring costs down. Banning direct advertising would also lessen costs to drug companies, who could then absorb the lower price being paid for their product (in addition to no longer having to pay health insurance for their own employees). No one would have to go without medical care because they couldn't afford it. Hospitals would not lose massive amounts of money in ERs because they'd be being paid directly by the government, and not having to try and recoup money from insurance companies for emergency care they've already provided. General health in the US would be better (and emergency care required less frequently) because people would be able to go to a Doctor when they first showed signs of sickness, rather than waiting until they were so sick they had no other option.
  8. Ah, no. There is no form of Nationalised Healthcare at all in the US. You (or your insurance) have to pay for everything - pay quite steeply too, as prices are always inflated the moment insurance companies get involved. The US is almost entirely alone in the western world in not providing some form of Universal Health Care. And, yeah, anyone outsode the States has a massive amount of trouble understanding why they insist on the system they use. @Kyrieath - see, there's a big problem with most of your basis and whys. 1) According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. (Quote from Wiki) Which means that, despite not having national health care, the US is still spending more tax money on it. Spending in the UK (as a percentage of total National income) is closer to 8%. 2) Some years ago a few of us actually got our finances out and compared personal spending on healthcare - the amount of tax I pay that goes towards the NHS (My National Insurance payments, which also go towards my State Penison) was also *less* than the money spent by individual people from the US on their insurance. I do not have to pay an excess either, whereas almost everyone with private insurance would still have to pay some money. So the NHS in the UK... costs the government less, costs individuals less, and treats everyone on a 'need' basis, rather than an 'ability to pay' basis. Added to which - if you think the NHS takes treatment decisions out of the hands of Doctors and puts it into the hands of the government you are wrong. It doesn't. The difference is that Doctors here can make the call that says a person needs treatment, and they don't have to worry about whether or not the insurance will pay for it first. Edit to add: Some further about the poor state of healthcare in the US
  9. You know it's funny - my Mum has actually said that my deciding I wasn't having children was one of the most mature and reasoned decisions she'd known me to make. The whole family is perfectly happy with the idea that I plan to be the worlds best Uncle (/Aunt, depending on how well they've adjusted to the idea I'm trans - that's been more difficult than the whole 'no kids' thing). The general populace though, geeze. In order to avoid akward/annoying conversations with customers I actually wear a ring to work and will say (if asked) that I've got a four year old (I have - a 4 year old nephew that I know enough about to get away with). Trying to explain to an 80 something year old (when you are only there to read the meter) that, no, you aren't married but have lived with a partner for 10 years and, no, you don't want kids gets tiring. As well as repetitive and pointless. It's easier just to let them think what they want to think (nice young working Mum) for the few minutes you're actually going to be dealing with them than it is to answer akward questions 60 times a day.
  10. I know first hand it can be really hard on parents. My Mum spent a *lot* of time feeling like she was a failure as a parent because I simply didn't 'get' the things she was trying to teach me. Getting the Aspergers diagnosis helped with that a lot, as she began to realise that it was just how I was wired, rather than a failing on her part. We did a *lot* of talking stuff through, though. And my diagnosis didn't come until after I'd moved out, so there was a bit of pressure off there too. My sister had the same thing with what people thought when we were growing up - she actually disowned me at one point. As in denying we were related when directly asked. She and I have likewise worked a lot of our issues out (although not to the levels of understanding each other my Mum and I have reached).
  11. I think, with hearing, it's more that our filters dn't work. Give me a hearing test and I'll ace it every time. Ask me to try and talk to someone in a crowded place with music in the background and I won't be able to hear a word they are saying. I just can't filter out all the background noise and focus on voices. Although I do seem to remember reading somewhere that uncommonly good visual and audial acuity is not unknown in the Aspergers population. Not enough to be diagnostic, but certainly higher than average.
  12. I'm a both person! I've grown up with both cats and dogs, and each has a special place in my heart. Our home wouldn't be home without either of our animals in it.
  13. Quite apparently the theme to Sunday Night Football on NBC. I'm really going to have to go and look up the song Joan Jett altered for them for that...
  14. Ooookay. So now we're making childrens first books into songs? Edit: Imma go back to the relaxing Classicals I have on.
  15. I imagine there's a good chance we may all lose acess to the forum, too. Which would be a shame. But, yeah, UK Govt. is totally hopeless with IT. There's not a snowball's chance in hell it will actually do what they want it to do, and probably with masses of unintended consequences to boot. That said we'd turn the filters off by default anyway, even if it was an opt-in kinda thing. Because let's face it, researching trans issues with them on simply wouldn't be possible.
  16. Ah, every artist has their off moment (and, to be fair, the fact that something is massively over-played doesn't make it a bad song - there's very few songs people *won't* get bored of if they hear them too often). Musn't forget Chuck Berry, though!
  17. I'd just like to throw it out there that I am a transgendered individual, and I can't say that the way it's listed on the dragon's pages has ever bothered me in the slightest.
  18. Couple of cases of oppertunistic rape, couple of the child having been prostituted, handful of historical counts where the child had been married (as in certain areas that was the custom as soon as they started their periods), and a handful where it was kids of around the same age messing about (12 year old got a 10 year old pregnant ). But, yeah. Not really a good thing, and with the exception of the last one totally inexcusible.
  19. You can also cleans discs up with toothpaste, just so you know. Use a clean finger to rub toothpase over the scratches, wash off under running water, and gently pat dry.
  20. PC all the way. There are a few games that are better on a console, but I've not really played all that many since the mid-90's. This despite us owning a 360 and a PS2. For one I can keep my PC running nicely up-to-date by changing the odd componant - unlike a console where the tech goes out of date in 6 months to a year, and you have to wait for a new one (that often isn't backwards compatible) for it to upgrade.
  21. I was certainly told they'd be more willing to perform a vasectomy on my partner than tubal ligation on me. For us it's rather the same as it is with Fuzz - if, God forbid, something should happen to me then my partner would want the ability to have children still present (not that he wants children at all, I think it's more incase a new partner was desperate for them). Besides - I'm the one with the health complications, here. Including some that are at least partially hereditary. Even my GP would have been happy to refer me for it, it's just he said no surgeon would agree to perform the operation. Which just goes back to the old stereotype of "Silly woman, of *course* you're going to want kids.".
  22. It's somewhat depressing to read how many of those are pretty recent. Also very depressing to note that the majority appear to have been cases of incest as well Although I would also note that legal abortion would not have helped in many of those cases - as it seems the pregnancies were only discovered when they were well along.
  23. They are so cute when they're baby, aren't they? Just a word of warning - as a Labrador owner myself - they *will* chew through puppyhood. Labs are notorious for it. Despite being confined to the kitchen when we were out/asleep and given plenty of durable toys of his own ours still managed to destroy both the skirting board and the lino (although thankfully not any furniture - I know Lab owners that lost a lot of chair legs). Just be aware. DO NOT leave anything in his way that could be a temptation - it's easier to put your shoes where the dog can't get at them than it is to tell him off every time he picks one up, and then have to replace shoes when he played with them anyway. They're also total gluttons. A lab will have *no* concept that it's full until it physically cannot get any more in it's stomach. And, yes, we saw that with mine at about 9 months old - he got his head into a feed bag at my Aunts, and he literally looked like a drum. He was also very ill afterwards. It's best just not to give them any hope of access to anything edible. And *do* control their diets - Labs put on weight like nobodies business if they're fed as much as they'd like. Fat Labs are at risk of a load of health problems, so for his sake and yours work out the ideal amount of food he should be getting and stick to it - regardless of the eyes! Edit to add: Here's my boy!
  24. As far as I am aware the sterilisation one is also an issue in Canada. I *know* it is here in the UK - where cost is not an issue if the NHS can be persuaded to do it. As it is.... standing policy is "not if they're under 35 and/or have no children already". A quick search turned up reports that women in their 20's with 2 kids were being denied tubal ligation in Canada. So, yeah, they're still pretty convinced that if women are under 30 they'll change their minds at some point. This despite that only 20% of women that *do* have to procedure under the age of 30 express any regret over it. It's on 6% that express any regret in those forced to wait until they are over 30. Incidently I'm trans, and the idea of pregnancy terrifies me to the core. I've been asking every 6 months for the last 7 years if they'll sterelise me yet - the answer is still no. I turn 30 next year, but they'll probably still keep saying no as I don't have kids (and I don't want them, which is why I want to be sterelised).