Succession is great. Every character is a pos in their own way. Great performances all around and it gets better every week.

Succession is great. For anyone who hasn't started watching it, it is extremely important to disregard the HBO promotional materials which inexplicably present it as a Very Serious Drama Series. If you approach it like that you will be bewildered by the tone for the first few episodes, it's more appropriately viewed as a farce.

Disgusting. So are entire neighborhoods not going to get medical care with that logic?

EMTs are in no position to determine the financial situation of a dying person based on sight. They should be fired and prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

Succession is awesome. Absolutey nails the rich dysfunctional family dynamic. And it is hilarious. Obviously Shiv will end up winning, btw.

I think Cousin Greg is going to win. Only think I'm sure of is that Shiv's husband is going to be repeatedly and brutally and hilariously cucked

People who are trying to dismantle socialized healthcare in other countries like to paint the US system as a place where no one ever has to wait for anything and everyone gets the best care ever because "free market efficiency" etc.

No wonder the British Empire broke up. They can't even keep track of their remaining territories.

1) I live on the Isle of Man. I don't know what the Fair Isle is. The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom.

2) The Isle of Man NHS is well integrated with the United Kingdom's NHS. Indeed, patients routinely move between the two to obtain various specialist services.

Both the UK and US medical systems have a bunch of problems. Both could be improved. This really should be an uncontroversial point-of-view, but because I don't fit into your pre-conceived notions that "all Government is bad" or "socialism is the answer", it seems you're unable to comprehend this.

Why do I have an obligation to create an entire health policy? Just because I don't think socialist health care for all is perfect? I'm just some random guy on the internet, I don't hold myself out as an expert at anything other than what I think - and when it comes to knowing what I think, no one else comes close. Which is why it is bizarre for people in this thread to tell me what I think.
I agree. The weakest members of our community are often victimised by the horrors of awful systems - especially because they often don't have much choice in the matter.

That bridge over there that's about to fall down and that bridge over here that has too many seagulls both have problems. Both could be improved.

Definitely cousin Greg fails his way up to the top.

Socialized healthcare systems, much like democracies, seem full of problems, until you compare them to any other approach to healthcare or governance. Then all of a sudden they look really good.

Characterising the UK's health system problems as merely a cosmetic issue is false. It is continuing to impose new rationing on medical procedures, removing the option for people to get various medical issues treated.
I'm in the process of listening to the audio book Skin in the Game. It makes the simple and obvious point that it is easy for people on the internet to make various claims about which option is better, without actually being held accountable for what they say.

I wonder what (if any?) accessible options exist for people who advocate for the NHS-style health system to be subjected to it, or for people who want the free market style health system to be subjected to it.

Presumably, no one in this discussion is going to move countries for this. Anyone got any better ideas for the keyboard warriors in this conversation (on both sides!) to get some skin in the game?

It was hyperbole. Pretending that the problems between the two systems are in any way equal is absurd.

In the US, we call this type of rationing "being poor".

How about you go play in traffic for a while.

If you do, come to the US first so you can have more experience with our health care system.

FYP

You can still purchase health insurance in the UK if you love paying for healthcare so much.

I tend to think most humans have some literal skin in the health care game.

I think ~5 years ago I thought Josem was a really good poster. Maybe 3 years ago I stumbled onto him in a non Internet Poker subforum and uhhh...my bad.

North Carolina man sues his wife's lover, is awarded $8.8 million for "alienation of affectation"

lmao

Sorry to disappoint, although I doubt I've changed much. You're always welcome to hide posts by me here: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/p...ignore&u=74713

I have a mother (70s with health issues), grandmother (93---take a guess), sister (pregnancy complications that required airlifting), brother (extreme sports enthusiast and accident prone) and niece (standard baby care) who are in Canada and myself (regular 40s ****), daughter & son (standard kid stuff), father (70s with heart issues), and brother (disability since birth) who are in the US. This gives me a pretty good range of skin in the game and insight into a spectrum of issues that come with both systems.

Tell you one thing that I am very jealous of without getting into any nuts and bolts, my Canadian family never ever runs a mental financial calculation when they have a health concern, they just get it taken care of. I never do not. My son bites his tongue through? I find a lump on my back? My wife tears her ACL? Where are we on our super high deductible plan for the year? Are we going to waste money to find out it is nothing? Am I really going to be disappointed to find out I am fine because I will be billed half a mortgage payment? I am not going to bore the thread with anecdotes because I am sure we all have them, but I pay 10-15% of my gross income in premiums (before a single visit or script) for the high deductible, high co-pay plan and I have it better than most. So if you were to raise my taxes by that much, hell even more, but cover others not as fortunate as I am and also I can just worry about my kid's health rather than if it is going to erase my savings for the quarter whether they are okay or not, yeah sign me the **** up.

I doubt anyone thinks the UK system is perfect but liberal-minded people tend to favor the concept of covering as many people adequately as possible without undue financial burden. Socialized systems come far closer to this goal than the US system. The US doesn’t even try tbh because of our perverse profit incentives.

Having a baseline public option with optional pay ups, primarily for faster service or boutique treatments, would appear to me to be the ideal compromise.

I got a recruiting email from Forward, a health-care startup which is probably exactly what you might imagine a Silicon Valley startup trying to "disrupt" the doctor's office to be. It sounded interesting so I looked into a few articles about them (here's one).

Their business model is, like, entirely predicated on how awful our healthcare system is. For $150/month, you get access to their services, which is, like, same-day doctor's office visits in an exam room filled with some high tech gizmos (They came up with a “body scanner” that measures height, weight, and body temperature in forty-five seconds, and uses “red-light spectroscopy” to unearth fun facts about the heart.) and service designed to make you feel like an Important Person (Visitors were greeted by a smiling receptionist’s query: “Flat or sparkling?”).

And no, that $150/month is not a health plan:

"Hey, we know you already have health insurance, but since it probably sucks ass, don't you want to spend another $1800 a year just to be able to see a doctor when you want?"

Socialist health care for all? Is that distinguished from, say, libertarian health care for all or was that redundancy purely for effect?