As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Socialized Communist Healthcare (Canadians, Brits, et al)

123578

Posts

  • L*2*G*XL*2*G*X Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    If you read all of what I said without taking anything out of context, you can see that a flat tax rate is what one would start off with, it was far from flat after taking into account the tax credit for the poor and taxing income above £60k.

    A flatter tax with more room for the middle class to earn money they have rightfully earned without being punished for there success would provide incentive and growth in that area for those people, it would also be more fair in my view. I would also make sure I would close the tax holes that many people currently use to avoid paying any taxes what so ever, however that bit is probably impossible.

    (still on allot of drugs right here holla at me dawg

    If you flatten the tax then the poor pay (proportionally) more and the rich pay (proportionally) less. If you then give the poor tax credits and have additional tax for the rich then you have unflattened it and are back to a progressive taxation scheme.


    Keep in mind you're taxing from the centre, not the basis. Minimum wage can't keep a family floating, never mind a country.
    So either you tax from the median, and then equal amounts of people pay more than they can afford than less. Or you tax from the middle, and the 10 percent ultra-rich get taxed fairly, but you're taking the whole paycheck away from a lot of people.

    Give it some thought man. More people are poor than rich, it aint no Gauss curve.

    L*2*G*X on
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Hey, there, folks living in a country with national medicine

    How do you feel about your system?

    Excellent

    Would you trade it for the current US system of private insurance?

    Not in a million years


    What do you like about your system?

    Good care when I need it. NO STRESS about how it will be paid for. I go in and then I go out, never thinking ONCE about a bill.

    What do you hate about it?

    There is a 4 YEAR waiting list for nursing school where I live. We need more schools to actually train more nurses and it's something that as far as I know isn't getting a lot of funding.
    I also have never waited in an emergency room for longer than an hour for something not serious and never waited for something serious. That being said my sister has waited 6 hours to get her sons ear infection looked at.


    I have heard criticisms of the Dreaded Socialized Medicine where things are bandied about like, "Everyone gets the same treatment no matter how much care they need" and "Do you want to wait to see a doctor?"

    There are waits, they just aren't as long as they were. The first sentence doesn't make sense, everyone gets the care they need.

    I've also heard that there are sometimes not enough specialists to go around or that doctors don't make a fair wage under these systems.

    We lack adequate family doc's and nursing staff. I can't comment on the wages with any confidence.


    I would really like a thread where people in nationalized healthcare systems tell the pros and cons, without Ameri-centric debate of the current candidate's policies.


    Pros:
    Stress free
    If not free then very inexpensive [Edit: inexpensive for the MSP premium if your employer does not deduct it].
    Good quality care
    Stress free

    One more time, no matter what happens to me I can be helped, without worrying that my cast is going to cost $900 or I have some pre-existing condition and X surgery is now going to bankrupt me.


    Cons: Poor job of training enough and keeping enough doctors and nurses.
    It is VERY hard to find a family doctor here, a lot leave for higher pay in the US (so says the news).

    Aridhol on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    The problem with the US system is the greater ability to doctor-shop, particularly through ERs, and the direct marketing of pharma products to the general populace, creating an artificial demand among the paranoid (and seriously, those ads are designed to make you paranoid).
    Higher prescription drug use is caused by direct marketing to people.

    Meh. Doctor-shopping is definitely a problem, exacerbated by lack of communication between doctors and pharmacies. I oppose direct-to-consumer pharma advertising but let's be honest here: the most abused drugs (Vicodin, Adderall, Xanax, and relatives) aren't heavily advertised. DTC advertising isn't quite as effective as is widely believed.
    oldmanken wrote:
    Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries

    I find very interesting the implication that higher prescription drug use is a bad thing. "Oh, no! People might be getting treated! For diseases!"

    If you want to argue that the US medical system has higher rates of prescription drug abuse (as opposed to use) first I'd need some evidence that that's the case. Second, I would chalk that up more to, as I said above, lack of communication between doctors and care providers.

    (By the way, paranoia about drug abuse and doctor-shopping can have a chilling effect, too. If you have a legitimate medical condition that requires you to take opioid pain medication, benzodiazepines, ADHD meds, or other common medication of abuse; and you've developed a tolerance to your medication requiring you to be on a relatively high dose - which isn't uncommon as all those meds do build up tolerances - then you're going to have a really hard time getting a new prescription if to need to switch doctors, say because you've moved or you've changed insurance. The best way to go about it is to go to a specialist of the appropriate medical specialty, pain management or psychiatry or neurology or whatever, and get them to write and sign a letter on practice letterhead saying, "John Doe has generalized anxiety disorder and takes up to 9 mg of Xanax per day." This can sometimes be easier said than done, considering how overbooked most physicians are in the US.)

    Anyway, I think that there is a very simple psychological dynamic that happens when you're paying for your own health care. If you hire a professional, you expect that professional to render services that he is uniquely qualified to provide. If they don't, you feel cheated. If a physician tells you, "Eat right and exercise," well shit I could have gotten that advice from my mother for free. But if a physician hands you a scrip, well then you've at least gotten your money's worth from that visit.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Canada has an excellent medicare system. It's wonderful, I wouldn't trade it for any system of private coverage.

    Now, the main issues that it has stem not from the system itself, but actually our constitutional arrangement. Our constitution stipulates that the provinces are responsible for healthcare and education, with the federal government responsible for pretty much everything else. The problem here is that all of the powers of taxation (or almost all) are given to the federal government, with the result being that the provinces have to pay for the most expensive things (healthcare/education) without having the taxation ability to properly cover the costs.

    This leads to transfer payments and such things from the feds to the provinces, as well as equalization, but that whole issue brings up a number of problems completely unrelated to healthcare (nature of the confederation, such as the fiscal imbalance, as well as the perennial problem of separatism).

    So, for me, I would "fix" our medicare system through a new constitutional arrangement. Since I'm a Trudeau federalist, I'd say that the feds should be responsible for healthcare (if not education), which would guarantee an equal level of care across the country, as well as get around the issues of taxation. But the other option, of moving some of the powers to taxation to the provinces, would have a similar effect, at least on the ability of the provinces to pay. I just find it unpalatable for reasons unrelated to healthcare.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'd like to chime in to say that the only way I can see the economics of private health care and private health insurance working is if it's mandated (like car insurance). That way, the numbers all balance out and it at least doesn't actively fuck over anyone with a chronic condition.

    The problems, then, are that then it would basically be another tax, and a particularly regressive one at that, and there's no real way of enforcing it, since you can't deny treatment to those who can't afford to pay.

    japan on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    japan wrote: »
    I'd like to chime in to say that the only way I can see the economics of private health care and private health insurance working is if it's mandated (like car insurance). That way, the numbers all balance out and it at least doesn't actively fuck over anyone with a chronic condition.

    The problems, then, are that then it would basically be another tax, and a particularly regressive one at that, and there's no real way of enforcing it, since you can't deny treatment to those who can't afford to pay.

    Well people who elect it have it taken out of their pay check, no difference really. Not like people who aren't piss-poor don't already get Medic-aid or similar programs that aren't actively mandated or available to everyone. Plus, like all of the US welfare programs, it's run like an absolute retarded entity.

    Hey let's not pay for a 5 day hospital visit but let's kick them out after 2 days and then they hurt themselves and go back in for 2 weeks. Good thinking.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    See, this is where we differ, I think that its unfair for one person to pay £70k thing for the same thing someone else has to pay £4k for....
    The same thing is true for roads, police forces, and education.

    I had this great quote that someone (sadly, I forgot to note who) wrote in one of the Ron Paul threads maybe six months back. Mildly off topic, so here's a spoiler.
    A Libertarian willing to admit he doesn’t understand something? This is a rarity. There are whole dissertations written on this subject by people far more qualified than me, but I’ll hit some of the very basics of the question, and the fundamental idea behind the existence of government. Let’s start with this whole ”government of the people, for the people” idea: the essential, fundamental purpose of government is to solve collective action problems (I’m going to refer to them as ”CAPs” from here on). There are many things which aren’t traditionally thought of as CAPs which actually are: crime comes to mind as the big one. It’s good for a society to be crime-free. However, if you have something, and I don’t, it benefits me, personally, to take that thing, even though it hurts society as a whole. Without some other incentive not to steal it (either a personal system of ethics/morals, wanting to keep you as a friend, or government intervention), I have no reason to not take it if I’m strong enough to do so. Thus, collective action problem.

    Another example (the classic example, really) would be something like roads. A new road going through a city to another city would create jobs, allow trade, allow travel, etc. Everyone in the city would see $300 in benefits from this new road (not necessarily $300 in money). The road, however, will cost $50,000. There are 1000 people in the city, so the city asks everyone to voluntarily contribute $50. Everyone realizes, however, that $50 is a lot of money to them, and whether or not they contribute, they’re still going to get the $300 worth of benefits, and $50 is quite a bit of money, and really, when you’re talking about a $50,000 road, $50 is nothing.

    So, each and every individual acts rationally, and elects not to contribute (unless they get $50 worth of personal satisfaction out of ”doing their part,” which very few people will). The city, seeing that this whole ”voluntary” thing isn’t working, and seeing that the city would benefit tremendously from this road, decides to introduce a tax in order to pay for it. So, a $50 a person tax is implemented. Now, we run into another problem: Hobo Bob only makes $25 a year, and he’s really not going to get anything out of the new road (maybe an extra $10 from the additional people, but less than he puts in).

    However, Richguy Robert owns the port in the city, and when the new road comes through, he’s going to start making an extra $1000 a year, in addition to the $3000 a year he already makes. So, the city decides, in its wisdom, that the people who benefit the most from the new road should probably pay some more. So, they tax Richguy Robert $300, and don’t bother asking Hobo Bob for anything. So, yeah, Hobo Bob gets some small benefit from the road, but Richguy Robert gets far more benefit from the road, even after paying way more in taxes for it. So, they should both be happy, right?

    No, of course not, people are never happy. Richguy Robert is going to bitch incessantly about how he’s paying $300 for this new road, while Hobo Bob isn’t paying anything, and that doesn’t seem fair, now, does it? And of course, looking at it from a very basic perspective, with no consideration whatsoever for what is actually going on behind the scenes, and what the actual effects of the road are (externalities), Robert is right.

    On a more complex scale, the city is representative of the Federal Government, the road is representative of all the government services they provide that allow Richguy Robert to become wealthy (everything from clean drinking water and safe food to keeping people from killing him and taking his stuff, and maintaining the economic security of his domestic and international investments), and Hobo Bob is representative of the people who get screwed by the system. If we were in Mad Max-land, Hobo Bob might be king, because maybe he’s way more of a badass than Richguy Robert. So, in order to compensate Hobo Bob for getting screwed, we help him out with social programs. Not only do these programs help him, they also help the rest of us, because they provide Hobo Bob with a disincentive to decide ”hey, y’know, my life sucks anyhow, I may as well turn to crime.” Social programs are also cheaper than law enforcement, so we see a net benefit from them, even if we aren’t consumers of the programs ourselves.

    Is the system perfect? No, absolutely not, there’s all sorts of room for improvement. But to argue there’s some sort of fundamental flaw, meaning that the system needs to be thrown out, or that taxation is the worst violation of freedom which exists is, at best, totally ignorant. For what you receive in return, your taxation is an incredible deal. It’s probably the best deal you’ll ever get in your entire life.

    At no point did I advocate a flat poll tax, or say taxes were wrong, I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes. But then I guess if people are going to riot to get there way over a poll tax then I'm not going to feel bad swindling the tax man should I see fit.


    I'd like to point out that there's a very simple logic flaw here - if in your world view, the rich pay no taxes (this is a fallacy, btw) and the middle class are taxed unfairly, then in your worldview, moving from middle class to rich is incentivized by a reduction in taxes, and thus the implication there is "know room or incentive to excel" is false.

    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    JohnnyCache on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Regarding the Canadian system, there's also an interesting phenomenon that I've observed from having worked at a hospital. It arises because Canadians see nationalized health care as part of their core identity - basically, we blow a shitton of money doing things that APPEAR to improve health care but don't actually, because it's politically advantageous. So we like to not fund existing working programs to divert the cash to new programs that have an up-and-coming politician's name on it that'll take forever and a lot of money to start up and get running for dubious benefits. See wait-time reduction plans - how do these do anything to rectify our doctor shortage? By shuffling existing doctors around?

    As saggio mentioned, we waste a -lot- of money on administrative overhead. It's not just the federal/provincial divide, but it filters down to municipalities too. And then there's the constant push and pull between US and European-style bureaucracies, where we amalgamate and then disintegrate repeatedly as governments change. For example, in 2006, a new layer was introduced between provincial and municipal, called the Local Health Integration Network, that would presumably connect local health services (hospitals, walk-in clinics, physical therapy and rehabilitation services, home-care services, etc,) But the hospital I worked at already had a network that expanded beyond the range of their LHIN, so they had to reconcile the two amidst bureaucratic and funding nightmares.

    Similarly, in 1998, the provincial government cut the number of hospitals they'd fund, so Women's College Hospital merged with Sunnybrook Health Services Centre - a process which was so incredibly painful that it was called off 8 years later in 2006, with a new provincial government in place. Shit like that blows soooo much money and time with no patient care benefit at all, it's incredibly frustrating.

    hippofant on
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Dis' on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dis' wrote: »
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Plus the fees are the same whether you go to Oxford or Glamorgan.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Plus the fees are the same whether you go to Oxford or Glamorgan.

    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    JohnnyCache on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Probably. If you attend higher education in the UK you basically need to be wealthy enough to support yourself for three to four years on no income. If you can attend part time and work the rest of the time (which isn't always possible) it's possible to support yourself, but generally only in the most precarious sense.

    japan on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    japan wrote: »
    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Probably. If you attend higher education in the UK you basically need to be wealthy enough to support yourself for three to four years on no income. If you can attend part time and work the rest of the time (which isn't always possible) it's possible to support yourself, but generally only in the most precarious sense.

    You can't get student loans to cover the cost of living?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    japan wrote: »
    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Probably. If you attend higher education in the UK you basically need to be wealthy enough to support yourself for three to four years on no income. If you can attend part time and work the rest of the time (which isn't always possible) it's possible to support yourself, but generally only in the most precarious sense.


    Is lodging a part of UK school fees? I mean, do you live in dorms there and such? Because if the roof is paid, you can get by on almost nothing.

    JohnnyCache on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    japan wrote: »
    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Probably. If you attend higher education in the UK you basically need to be wealthy enough to support yourself for three to four years on no income. If you can attend part time and work the rest of the time (which isn't always possible) it's possible to support yourself, but generally only in the most precarious sense.


    Is lodging a part of UK school fees? I mean, do you live in dorms there and such? Because if the roof is paid, you can get by on almost nothing.

    Lodging is generally not, no. There are dorms for the first year normally, but they have to be paid separately. Later years you're typically left to fend for yourself (although my college owned a couple of blocks of flats for that purpose instead, which was really useful).

    Edit: You can get loans, but I'm not sure if they are quite enough to cover costs. I was lucky that my parents gave me a bit of extra cash every month, plus I had some money saved away on top.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You can get loans to cover the cost of living, often they aren't really sufficient depending on locale, and they're means-tested, which seems to screw over a lot more people than you'd think (generally it assumes that someone's parents are able to give up a lot more of their income than is realistic, and it really screws over people who don't get on with one or both of their parents, for whatever reason).

    Accomodation isn't included in fees paid to the University, that's usually billed seperately, and a lot of Universities are selling off any accomodation that they own, meaning it's commonly restricted to first-year students and/or students from above a certain distance away.

    japan on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Sorry if my comment is redundant but following the Presidential/debate thread distracts me enough from work so I haven't read the entire thing.

    I'm from Massachusetts where we've at least started a system of universal coverage. My (private insurance) premium has been unaffected, the program is very popular and a significant number of people now have coverage that would not otherwise.

    I also have solid coverage. I have comprehensive health care coverage with minimal co-pays and my prescriptions are covered
    (for non-USians whose countries might not use this lingo, that means even if I get a huge disease I'm pretty safely covered, visits to the doctor/dentist/hospital cost $10-20 out of pocket and I have to pay at most $10-20 to fill a prescription)
    , and my employer pays 90% of the coverage for me so I only have to pay something like $20/month. I'm exactly the kind of guy that people would not think supports federal universal health care because it would likely be economically detrimental to me on a surface level. Luckily, I have respect for basic human dignity as well.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    japan wrote: »
    they're means-tested, which seems to screw over a lot more people than you'd think (generally it assumes that someone's parents are able to give up a lot more of their income than is realistic, and it really screws over people who don't get on with one or both of their parents, for whatever reason).

    Whoo, just like FAFSA in the states.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Plus the fees are the same whether you go to Oxford or Glamorgan.

    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Anecdotes ahoy!

    Of people I knew well in my school year (who wanted to go) there were perhaps 2/30 who gave up on the idea because of money reasons and a lot more (8-9?/30) who worked for a year or two before going. Middle-class as heck area though (county has the highest per capita income in the UK), so I'm assuming its a low fraction compared to nationally. Additionally the loans calculations explicitly factor in parent's income and assumed contribution - so annoying them is a bad idea :P.

    Edit: Looks like others answered. Speaking of lodgings expense horror stories - one of my Universities halls charged £115 a week for a room (and presumably higher nowadays), and even the cheapest and furtherest away one (mine) was £79 a week.

    @NATIK: That sounds lovely.

    Dis' on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dis' wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Plus the fees are the same whether you go to Oxford or Glamorgan.

    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Anecdotes ahoy!

    Of people I knew well in my school year (who wanted to go) there were perhaps 2/30 who gave up on the idea because of money reasons and a lot more (8-9?/30) who worked for a year or two before going. Middle-class as heck area though (county has the highest per capita income in the UK), so I'm assuming its a low fraction compared to nationally. Additionally the loans calculations explicitly factor in parent's income and assumed contribution - so annoying them is a bad idea :P.

    Given the current credit crunch can you guess what US students do in that situation?

    My girlfriend didn't have to take out any predatory loans and still owed 60 thousand US$ when she graduated from college. I went to a state school and only owed 10K at a low interest rate. Its how they hook you... you start out in the hole.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    they're means-tested, which seems to screw over a lot more people than you'd think (generally it assumes that someone's parents are able to give up a lot more of their income than is realistic, and it really screws over people who don't get on with one or both of their parents, for whatever reason).

    Whoo, just like FAFSA in the states.

    Man, this bit me in the buttocks pretty bad. Our system assumes a parental contribution until age 24 or until your parents stop claiming you on their income taxes. Now, my parents wouldn't give me any money, but still reported me as a dependent. I let it slide for two years, but then I started holding them up for at least the difference it made in my taxes.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    Given the current credit crunch can you guess what US students do in that situation?

    My girlfriend didn't have to take out any predatory loans and still owed 60 thousand US$ when she graduated from college. I went to a state school and only owed 10K at a low interest rate. Its how they hook you... you start out in the hole.

    Oh I'm not going to get into a student loans crumminess contest with someone from the US - I know the difference between being stabbed with a knife and being violated with a chainsaw.

    Dis' on
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Coldred wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Also, doesn't the UK have subsidized school? So it's kind of hard to say you're denied opportunity, even if you're taxed to the point where your cash economy is non-existent - you can still go to quality high schools and "universities" for free or reduced prices, right?

    Eh, in England you have to pay fees up front as well as the university itself being subsidised for you attending it* and you can get loans from the Student Loan Company (which only charges interest to match inflation). For a non-wealthy background it's still moderately daunting going to university cost-wise in the UK (especially with a generally higher cost of living), and anecdotally it seems harder to fit in part time work with less flexible course schedules than the US. I certainly struggled at times, but that's more the rental insanity of inner London living.

    *Something of a problem - when the college gets given the same per student, whither they study literature or chemistry, and the latter course costs them five times as much to run...

    Plus the fees are the same whether you go to Oxford or Glamorgan.

    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Anecdotes ahoy!

    Of people I knew well in my school year (who wanted to go) there were perhaps 2/30 who gave up on the idea because of money reasons and a lot more (8-9?/30) who worked for a year or two before going. Middle-class as heck area though (county has the highest per capita income in the UK), so I'm assuming its a low fraction compared to nationally. Additionally the loans calculations explicitly factor in parent's income and assumed contribution - so annoying them is a bad idea :P.

    Given the current credit crunch can you guess what US students do in that situation?

    My girlfriend didn't have to take out any predatory loans and still owed 60 thousand US$ when she graduated from college. I went to a state school and only owed 10K at a low interest rate. Its how they hook you... you start out in the hole.

    Which is why it's nice that the fees are the same no matter which university you go to. Although cost of living may vary of course. London students generally get higher loans though.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What does a shitty little apartment in london cost?

    JohnnyCache on
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Dis' wrote: »
    @NATIK: That sounds lovely.

    Thank you :P.

    Yes, I realise it isn't going to make a difference for you guys, it was more of a "what?" thing and it's only a single post.

    We have what might be problematic in the other direction though, you can't claim dependants here, the moment your children turn 18 you lose all support usually afforded to parents and the state sees the child as another adult living there that should make a full income.

    In fact that state assumes that parents will take 50% of their childrens incomes, if they live at home even if the child is below 18.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What does a shitty little apartment in london cost?

    It varies wildly depending on how bad a shit-hole you want to live in. It is the only part of the country though where rent is paid "per week" rather than "per month".

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    What does a shitty little apartment in london cost?

    Where in London and how shitty? I've seen absolutly terrible flats on the market for £100+ per week (with actual holes through the wall), and you have to go pretty far out to get under £70 per week. One of the best way to save money is to get a place with a lounge and stick another person in there at the cost of no social space - something I still find myself doing several years after graduating.

    Quick search on findaproperty.com reveals for rental properties within a 10 mile radius of central london (out of 41135 on the site currently):
    <£40: 0
    £40-£50: 1
    £50-£60: 4
    £60-£70: 6
    £70-£80: 27
    £80: 200 or so

    Basically if you want to pay less than £60 living with conveniently located family or piling extra people into a flat is the way to go.

    Dis' on
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    To be honest our systems are pretty much "danes first, screw everyone else", I ain't proud of it but it's the truth.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    NATIK wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    Do they have gay marriage over there?
    Are you single?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ColdredColdred Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    NATIK wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    To be honest our systems are pretty much "danes first, screw everyone else", I ain't proud of it but it's the truth.

    How about EU citizens?

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    Do they have gay marriage over there?
    Are you single?

    We have gay marriage and I am single :winky:.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    NATIK wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    Do they have gay marriage over there?
    Are you single?

    We have gay marriage and I am single :winky:.

    I totally called it first through implication. You cats ain't got nothing.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    NATIK wrote: »
    In Denmark we only count the parents income if you live at your parents, if you live away from home the parents income is regarded as irrelevant.

    Man, if there was ever a time to want to move to Denmark, it's now.

    However, I'm a lazy fuck and only want to speak English and not live in Europe. How does someone like me benefit from your country?

    I don't you can unless you are under 22 and one of your parents are danish :( as you pretty much have to have a danish citizenship before you get anything at all.

    To be honest our systems are pretty much "danes first, screw everyone else", I ain't proud of it but it's the truth.

    How about EU citizens?

    They get almost the same amount of benefits as danes, there are some small differences in the educational systems and such.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Coldred wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    When you say "moderately daunting," are there many people who can't attended for financial reasons?

    Probably. If you attend higher education in the UK you basically need to be wealthy enough to support yourself for three to four years on no income. If you can attend part time and work the rest of the time (which isn't always possible) it's possible to support yourself, but generally only in the most precarious sense.


    Is lodging a part of UK school fees? I mean, do you live in dorms there and such? Because if the roof is paid, you can get by on almost nothing.

    Lodging is generally not, no. There are dorms for the first year normally, but they have to be paid separately. Later years you're typically left to fend for yourself (although my college owned a couple of blocks of flats for that purpose instead, which was really useful).

    Edit: You can get loans, but I'm not sure if they are quite enough to cover costs. I was lucky that my parents gave me a bit of extra cash every month, plus I had some money saved away on top.

    Basically the way it works is that you can take out loans to cover both your tuition fees and some of your living costs. The maintenance loan is means tested (depends on parents income) and varies from £3,000ish to £5,000ish. On top of that people from low income backgrounds can apply for a grant which can be up to about £3,000, and there's also a University provided bursary of up to £1000

    So if your parents earn less than £25,000 then you can look to get about 10,000 to cover everything, some of this will be loans, and some of this will be as a grant.

    As much as people love to bitch about it, the system is pretty good at the moment IMO.

    Rook on
  • Willeh DeeWilleh Dee Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    If you read all of what I said without taking anything out of context, you can see that a flat tax rate is what one would start off with, it was far from flat after taking into account the tax credit for the poor and taxing income above £60k.

    A flatter tax with more room for the middle class to earn money they have rightfully earned without being punished for there success would provide incentive and growth in that area for those people, it would also be more fair in my view. I would also make sure I would close the tax holes that many people currently use to avoid paying any taxes what so ever, however that bit is probably impossible.

    (still on allot of drugs right here holla at me dawg

    If you flatten the tax then the poor pay (proportionally) more and the rich pay (proportionally) less. If you then give the poor tax credits and have additional tax for the rich then you have unflattened it and are back to a progressive taxation scheme.

    It would however be allot flatter, and in my view fairer, than the current state of affairs.

    Oh, and to represent my problem with the NHS as far as it operates on such a limited budget that the very bare minimum is provided, just look at the state of our dental care, there is a stereotype for a reason. I'm British and the teeth here disgust me in comparison to the majority of the teeth in the states. I'm going to have to invest a serious amount of money to correct my smile and whiten my teeth to Hollywood standards due to a lack of investment early on in life. Dental checkup's over here are a joke.

    Now im not going to post some meth head's teeth and then Britney Spears teeth as evidence, but if fellow Brits are honest, they'll know what im talking about.

    These may be the ramblings of a fool, and im sure there are many a flaw in my opinion, feel free to point it out, but its how I feel after having dealt with the NHS for 22 years of my life and having experienced quality health and dental care both here and abroad in comparison. (still high as a fucking kite mind)

    Willeh Dee on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Flat tax is the opposite of fair, genius.

    Fencingsax on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    I think Kevin has a rather distorted view of how a socialized medical system actually works. For one thing, we actually have to pay for our prescriptions, unless they are administered while in the hospital. Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries, largely because it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to be on the take from one of the large pharma's.

    You have to pay but they are subsidized. Much like people who are part of private insurance plans sometimes pay for drugs but they too are subsidized. Most insurance plans are all about subsidization that's the whole point but I think the more successful one's have scaling deductibles instead of a single one size fit's all pay plan no matter the treatment.

    If you reread the sentence I wasn't singling out socialized health care. I was pointing out flaws in all health care systems, including those using insurance plans, where people often exploit the fact they can get heavily subsidized care or drugs which they often don't need. This kind of exploitation increases the cost for everybody.

    This is my problem with most health care plans, both socialized and private insurance sponsored. People should have to pay for treatment. Maybe it can be scaled so the more you can afford, the more you pay, but "free" healthcare for everybody with no out of pocket costs attached is a system begging for bankruptcy.

    KevinNash on
  • NATIKNATIK DenmarkRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    You have to pay but they are subsidized. Much like people who are part of private insurance plans sometimes pay for drugs but they too are subsidized. Most insurance plans are all about subsidization that's the whole point but I think the more successful one's have scaling deductibles instead of a single one size fit's all pay plan no matter the treatment.

    If you reread the sentence I wasn't singling out socialized health care. I was pointing out flaws in all health care systems, including those using insurance plans, where people often exploit the fact they can get heavily subsidized care or drugs which they often don't need. This kind of exploitation increases the cost for everybody.

    This is my problem with most health care plans, both socialized and private insurance sponsored. People should have to pay for treatment. Maybe it can be scaled so the more you can afford, the more you pay, but "free" healthcare for everybody with no out of pocket costs attached is a system begging for bankruptcy.

    I honestly think we shouldn't let a few hypocondriacs ruin it for everyone, if the doctors do their job the hypcondriacs will be caught be the GPs most of the time anyway and thus will be a minimal expense.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.