Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:When numbers of onfirmed infections or deaths attributed to the virus per million people are compared, the US is doing much, much better than most Wester European countries.

I have. O doubt that you are smart enough to understand the math. You are simply to dishonest to acknowledge the math.

And you're clearly not smart enough to accurately see the limits inherent in the data due to a lack of testing. As we saw in some cities in Italy, there are a number of deaths that aren't counted as covid-related because the people who passed were never, not before and not after death, tested for covid.

Only in countries with comprehensive testing regimes that cover a lot more people than what testing in the US is currently able to can we make accurate statements about the death rate.

So, in other words: The raw data available to us is painting a misleading picture of the state of covid in the US. There are very few countries where we can actually make statements with confidence; South Korea is the prime example here.

The final picture will only emerge in a couple of weeks or months, but we can already say that unless China is massively underreporting things, the US will end up as the single worst outbreak amongst first-world nations, Italy included, both in absolute and relative terms.

Part of the issue is that it is hard to do apples to apples comparisons between US and small densely populated countries like Italy and Great Britian. How will our huge, lightly populated rural areas like South Dakota be impacted compared to urban ones, such as NYC or even Sioux Falls? I wonder if a more appropriate comparison might be between NYC and Milan...

Another factor to consider is our individualism. Americans are not good at being told what to do. In this situation, that could come back to bite us. So I am not optimistic that we will end up looking good compared with countries with better compliance rates on shut down and stay at home orders.

It's sobering to observe that about 70% of the deaths are folks in my age bracket and above, mostly because we are much more likely to have complicating health issues.

My wife and I are forted up. Our groceries are delivered. As a release valve, we are both readers. We go for rides in the country without stopping and getting out of the car and exposing ourselves to others. I have a nice big yard to care for. Then, I have amateur radio.

So for us, life is still good. My prayers are that all of you are faring as well.

Don

-

Don, a possibly better comparison would be between the US and Australia. Sure there are about 13 times as many of you, but comparing rates per million takes care of that.
Both countries are English speaking, have free press and elections, and somewhat similar systems.
According to the NYT the US death toll is currently 32 per million and Australia's is 2 (incidentally NZ has 0.2).
Why is this so? While we have more defensible borders we also had more Chinese visitors.
Theories (that I agree with) are that most of our workers have sick pay available so would not go to work if sick, we have national universal health care so people aren't worried about the cost of tests or treatment, we have a universal national welfare net so the mechanism is in place for income support, and much as I have to say it we have effective leadership.
In regard to your comment about individualism, I believe it is more that a percentage of your population have bought into a myth.
I was on an other writer's blog last night for the first time (it's OK as David supports Taylor Anderson), and was struck by one of the contributor's comments on covid-19, and the response to its treatment. Despite reasoned responses he was almost incoherent with rage about people suggesting "socialist and communist" approaches like national health and welfare nets. That's not rugged individualism, that's stupidity. Somewhat akin to "prying ma gun out of ma cold dead hand". Every developed country has had national welfare and health systems for many decades, and we haven't gone communist or lost our freedoms.

clancy688 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
This is just utter bull shit. Here is a reliable, apolitical source of information:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

I almost feel bad for pointing this out, but...

worldometer uses the numbers supplied by the John Hopkins University.
covidgraph uses the numbers supplied by the John Hopkins university.

Both websites are displaying exactly the same numbers from exactly the same sources. (:

The only difference is that covidgraph is displaying some curves which worldometer isn't. But the underlying numbers are the same.

The WHO has an updated status report once each day at www.who.int, hit tab COVID-19 quick links, hit tab situation reports, hit tab for whatever day you want. The numbers are not an match to the Johns Hopkins numbers, but are somewhat close.

Daryl wrote:
Every developed country has had national welfare and health systems for many decades, and we haven't gone communist or lost our freedoms.

True. I don't see national health care in our future for decades, if at all. It won't fly politically. What might eventually fly would be some form of single payer, perhaps similar to Canada's, which is what Medicare for all would be.

The two times it has been introduced, the cost has been steep. After the attempt in 1993, we (Democrats) lost both the Senate and the House, primarily on that issue. In 2009, we did manage to get Obama care through. That was far from perfect with too many compromises with big pharma and the insurance industry. But again, the price was steep. We again lost the House, National Healthcare usually polls well, but when it comes down to elections, the electorate sends up conservative politicians.

Sooo, now what? After a very poor start due to both right wing media and, frankly, poor implementation, Obama care has become popular. For one thing, the number of insured rose from about 85% to IIRC, about 93%. I think, for the moment, providing Obama care survives court challenges currently pending, the thing to do would be to build on it and plug its holes and deficiencies. There are too many other challenges that need attention right now. Dealing with climate change, for example, is going to be a political doozy.

As I recall from reading somewhere, Australia had its own struggles to introduce a national health care system. Perhaps you could share what that was like.

Don

-

Strangely, Victoria has 1212 confirmed cases, 12 people in intensive care, and 12 fatalities.

I'm a touch young to remember medicare being int4oduced. But conservative governments have been trying to destroy it for over 20 years.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:If you really believe this, then you should support the US withdrawing from NATO and the alphabet soup of other entangling alliances. Germany would be elated to bear the full costs of your security, either alone or in concert with other European countries. I doubt that Germany will be comfortable depending on France's nuclear umbrella, so you will have to get nukes of your own. This will not endear you to Russia, so you will need even more nukes. Poland is unlikely to feel comfortable with a nuclear armed Germany and no American guarantee of security, so they will go nuclear to. Angela Merkel is already bitching about Trump pressuring her to spend 2% of GDP on the military. Think about how well your welfare state will do if you have to spend 100% of GDP on defense. Perhaps Merkel can intimidate Putin and everyone else with her weapons of mass distraction?

Only you could read my endorsement of the USA that won WW2 and that created NATO as an endorsement of your completely wrong ideas.

As for America and free trade, should America's access to global markets be contingent on America remaining in NATO and bearing the enormous costs of ensuring freedom of navigation and access to Middle East oil for everyone? If so, then your alleged enlightenment is a fraud. You are no different than the rulers of the mercantile capitalist empires that gave us World Wars. Why the Hell should we think of you as friends?

Because we want you to be better than you are. Russia and China want you gone, we want you to live and prosper, that's the difference.

Also, I think it's funny that you think that's a response to what I wrote. You claimed that the US was independant of global trade and thus self-sufficient; the simple truth of the matter is that it isn't. You depend on foreign governments and companies investing in the US, you depend on foreign markets where labour is cheaper than it is in the US to provide products the people your system keeps in poverty can actually afford; if you were truly interested in building a self-sufficient state, you would have to address the systemic issues that keep you in a neoliberal capitalist hell.

But that's something you, TFLY, can't do. Because it would require you to ackknowledge that systemic issues exist that need fixing, and once you start doing that, the only moral path out is to accept socialism.

The E wrote:Also, I think it's funny that you think that's a response to what I wrote. You claimed that the US was independant of global trade and thus self-sufficient; the simple truth of the matter is that it isn't. You depend on foreign governments and companies investing in the US, you depend on foreign markets where labour is cheaper than it is in the US to provide products the people your system keeps in poverty can actually afford; if you were truly interested in building a self-sufficient state, you would have to address the systemic issues that keep you in a neoliberal capitalist hell.

Not to mention that China regularly buys US treasure bonds. I think they have about 1.1 trillion USD in bonds now. Without China the US economy would crash, although so would China's since the currencies are inter-dependent. Anyone thinking that the USA can go their own way and be self-sufficient is delusional.

OK Don in regard to "As I recall from reading somewhere, Australia had its own struggles to introduce a national health care system. Perhaps you could share what that was like."

It hasn't been easy. Without checking dates there were several stages.
Originally the states had "Free hospital systems'. These buckled under the cost of modern medical procedures.
A Labor (Democrat equivalent) national government established "Medibank" in 1976 which was an initial universal national system. A new conservative Liberal (similar to Republicans, even their name is a lie) government then privatised Medibank. Not abolishing it, just killing it slowly by making it user pays. It became Medibank Private, just another private provider for hire.
Later on another Labor government brought in Medicare, which basically used a 2% income tax surcharge to fund it. It provides all things eventually. Unprogrammable things like pregnancy and traffic accidents are handled well, but elective surgery like hip replacements have long waiting lists. People like me can buy additional cover from private firms to ensure timely and full service.
Doctors are still generally individual business people (except those working for state hospitals). Many "bulk bill" which means that they just claim off Medicare, but others do charge more. We also have specialists (consultants in the UK) who charge more.
There are state and private hospitals, state are free, but private charge and get extra money for elective work.
Medicare is highly regarded, and governments interfere with it at their peril. Nothing is perfect, but even hard conservatives are careful not to call Medicare a socialist program (which it sort of is).

As I have said nothing is perfect, however, if in this country a poor citizen will die without treatment, they get it quickly and well for free. If they need it but lack of it won't kill them, they will also get it for free, but it may take time.
If someone is a bit better off and has private cover as well, they can get world class, and quick treatment.

Somewhat complicated due to our tax and retirement system, but, now I'm retired I still pay some Medicare levy, and also choose to pay about $350 AUD a month for a couple for top private cover. For that I can get anything I need or want medically.

The details are important, but I believe that the overall is more so.
Our system of universal health and welfare nets makes us freer. For all the hype of some US red necks, our basic workers know that they are secure, thus safer and less vulnerable.
The basic wage of $18+ an hour, with sick leave, along with a survivable dole, and free medical ensures that an employer can't force them to do stuff, as they can just tell them to go elsewhere and fornicate (F Off).

The E wrote:
Because it would require you to ackknowledge that systemic issues exist that need fixing, and once you start doing that, the only moral path out is to accept socialism.

A neoliberal capitalist hell? Well, no. There are far too many folk on the short end of the stick. We do have systemic issues that need to be addressed. But the process of capital formation and investment is the goose laying the golden eggs and a big reason we are a wealthy country.

You kinda tripped across one of my pet peeves...That word socialism... Classicly what it refers to is public ownership of the means of production. But that word has gotten pretty greasy. So it would be helpful at least to me if you would define yourself...

Don

-

n7axw wrote:As I recall from reading somewhere, Australia had its own struggles to introduce a national health care system. Perhaps you could share what that was like.

Don

-

To give this a rough cost breakdown.

Medicare basically pays a fee for various doctors visits, and the doctor is then free to charge above that fee if they like, and due to a younger daughter being on the spectrum we have a health care card. Different consult types have a different fee attached.

So, early November miss 15 (Well, 14. She turned 15 a few days later) walks into the bedroom to point out that she has a lump in her neck.

Off to the GP. GP bulk bills for healthcare card holders. (They charge the base fee, and send the bill directly to the government)
He orders bloods and an ultrasound. Both bulk billed.
Second GP visit for results, referred to a specialist. Bulk Billed

Specialist visit, includes a camera down the throat, around $200.00 out of pocket, orders biopsy.

Biopsy, bulk billed.

Specialist result visit. Should have been about $150.00 for the visit but she bulk billed. I suspect she really didn't like the idea of billing someone to tell them their child has cancer.

Refer to Royal Children's Hospital cancer unit and endocrine surgeon.

Visit Surgeon. I'm not saying he wrote the book, but he did write the chapter that deals with this type of problem. Says he wont operate, too risky, will try drugs first. Again around a $200.00 fee, but he bulk billed. I suspect because he couldn't do anything.

RHC Oncologist. About a visit a week for the next 8 weeks. All bulk billed. Including blood tests, biopsy, genetic tests, CT scans, etc.

If she'd gone on to regular treatment then that would also have been all bulk billed, but she's actually part of a trial and the company is paying the costs as part of it. They're probably claiming Medicare fee's though. So this spiel stops here.


I'd hate to think what the costs would have been in the US system.


Oh, the second biopsy was done under some heavy sedation because they wanted a fair sized chunk. Anyway, the school sends an sms advising that our child had been marked absent and to text back why. So I sent a photo of Miss S in a hospital bed, bandaged neck, and still high as a kite from the biopsy.