@johnh , I dont know where you get the idea that French medical care is some kind of panacea…I live in france and I can assure you it isnt, I find it extreamly disjointed and inefficient.
And you had better be employed by a french company if you expect to get up to 70% of your healthcare cost repaid by the government and if you want some of the remaining 30% repaid to you then you will need additional private heathcare coverage. And even then you will be forking out your own money additionally.
Ironically the place I consider I have had the best healthcare experience is Saudi Arabia – once I got past the paperwork bureaucracy…
The thing is, every system has its problems.
Regards, SD..
I dont know where you get the idea that French medical care is some kind of panacea
From living in France. I always found it work really, really well. I haven’t lived there for 20 years but from my odd encounters with it since, it is still just as good. Among other things, I had a massive shoulder fracture skiing. I came close to losing my arm, and VERY close to losing much practical use of it. By good luck I was seen by one of the top shoulder surgeons in the world, in Nice, who put it all back together again. And – needless to say – no worries about what insurance might or might not cover.
Silvaire wrote:
By my observation the care is more personal, more flexible, less restricted, more comprehensive, faster and more technically advanced. The usual things that come with (somebody) paying more.
At least if you compare to the Western European systems: That is not the case.
It’s well understood where the money goes: 1.) some factor cost (much higher wages for medical staff, higher Rx prices (and a bit lower Gx), profit of health insurers), 2.) higher legal and liability cost 3.) some TA with disproportional intervention volumes (esp. mental health).
One good example: A colonoscopy is about USD2.500 in the US and about USD850 in Germany (before the Germany physicians here shout out loudly: That is 700EUR and in both cases including histology lab…). About 40% of the difference is driven by labor cost differences, the other 60% by insurance and liability charges.
Silvaire wrote:
I found the use of the word “deprived” in the article astonishing, compete nonsense, an awful label that signifies acceptance of permanent class barriers, social failure.
It’s actually easy to say that from the point of view of someone who (I assume) was privileged since birth in a way that he had the opportunity to learn to read and write from early childhood.
Sorry, but it’s not an exclusive US problem (however, it might be a bit bigger there than in some European countries) that there are people that are “2nd of 3rd generation illegal economy and social security”. Adult people, that have not visited a school frequently, adult people which have never been taught by they parents that you have to get up in the morning in order to do something reasonable during the day (some of them don’t even know the concept of an alarm clock).
I actually perceive it quite as quite cynic if one states: We are a free country and even if the first 30 years of your life have been completely wasted tomorrow you can start new and build your fortune. You can’t – even if you are not belonging to the about 10 millions of Americans who suffer Opioid abuse these days…
Silvaire wrote:
I found the use of the word “deprived” in the article astonishing, compete nonsense, an awful label that signifies acceptance of permanent class barriers, social failure
It doesn’t signify any of those things. According to Cambridge dictionary:
not having the things that are necessary for a pleasant life, such as enough money, food, or good living conditions
I see both in principle and in practice that expecting the government to step in and fix matters can lead to passivity and a sense of inevitability. On the other hand, recognising that deprivation exists is the key to doing something about it. Anybody who’s been to an urban school with poor heating, cracks in the wall and graffiti everywhere has to wonder how the kids there learn anything.
The idea that the USA is more socially mobile than other developed countries seems to be a myth. My neighbours recently moved to Norway, which is near the top of the list, and it has been really interesting to hear how much support my son’s best friend has had to help him adjust to school there – he has been on a programme for immigrant kids.
Norway is a hugely rich country. A small and socially cohesive population, relatively negligible ethnic issues, relatively negligible immigration issues, and looooads of oil money 
I have some very nice customers there…
In most countries, with more normal income/expenditure structures (basically most of Europe, and the US) there is no obvious solution to this. It’s been the case for centuries that [insert some very low figure]% of the people own [insert some very high figure, between 90 and 99]% of the country. The welfare state is relatively generous in all of these, and some % of the population simply lives off the welfare state and has given up bothering. On top of that, Wales is a region which is extra poor nowadays because there used to be a lot of industry there which has died out and while billions were spent on regeneration of all the old Industrial Revolution regions, this only goes so far. Take a trip up to Caernarfon and walk around the town and you’ll get the impression that 16 is the maximum age of a girl pushing two in a pram. I recall one extended family, every one of them well into the 100-200kg area, sitting in a park and eating crisps, and ice cream out of a ~ 5 litre tub. The place looks grim not just because of no property maintenance but because it gets smashed up. Same in so many places… Harlow is another which comes to mind, where a whole area, which once looked like a “town centre”, is basically smashed up. A pattern repeated in so many places and in every modern country. We’ve seen scenes not too different in Switzerland!
Social divisions are huge everywhere and I don’t think anybody knows where to even start… One can chip away around the edges, spend money on urban regeneration, but there is no political consensus to do anything major, and anyway it’s not clear that the necessary massive wealth redistribution (which would have close to zero population/political support) would work as expected simply because so many have just opted out of running their lives.
And everything relevant to CV19 correlates down the line: lack of parental involvement → poor education → poor health.
Actually I think the UK is a rather kind place. It also does better than many rich countries when it comes to ethnic integration. But while that reduces the terrorism angle it doesn’t help with susceptibility to a highly infectious disease, because culturally these communities go for multi-generational occupation, and multi-generational family activities.
Peter wrote:
It’s been the case for centuries that [insert some very low figure]% of the people own [insert some very high figure, between 90 and 99]% of the country.
Peter wrote:
Social divisions are huge everywhere
I believe we need to differentiate between two different types of social division: Those between the very rich and avg. population and those between avg. population and the very poor.
The first type of division is largely irrelevant. Lets face it: Even if 10 people with one multiplujillion dollars would move into Germany and hence significantly shift the overall GINI factor, life would not change at all for any existing inhabitant (ok someone is no longer the richest person in Germany but only the 11th richest…).
The second type is much more relevant: Average prices, access, etc. in a country are aligned with average income…
Even if 10 people with one multiplujillion dollars would move into Germany and hence significantly shift the overall GINI factor, life would not change at all for any existing inhabitant (ok someone is no longer the richest person in Germany but only the 11th richest…).
In the short term that would be true, but in the medium term I fear that the very wealthy have the ear of the politicians out of proportion to their numbers. Sooner or later one ends up with legislative changes and social agendas that might not best serve those in the rest of society.
My own feeling about poverty and deprivation is that the time to tackle it is very young: good schools where kids can feel safe and be well nourished. Help with parenting for those who need it – and some certainly do. Some adults manage to turn their lives around, but very few.
I agree; one has to start with children – because they are powerless on their own.
Does the seasonal flu – which kills around 50k in the UK each year – have a similar socio-economic distribution?
“Social mobility” is a complete red herring but it fits with the agenda of the left. What is important for quality of life is money, resources, and the freedom to use them as you like, not where you fit into their imagined social hierarchy. That whole concept makes me feel ill.
I’ve stated my opinion on US healthcare, it’s better, and that’s probably a good thing for me if I keep reading about “social mobility” as a separate concept from earning a good living based on initiative and doing something useful, without reference to the values, prejudices and culture of those around you.
