scrubbedexpat091

Both governments in some countries and population in general in some countries lack the financial ability to deal with months of no income, or severely reduced income.

Until society finds an alternative to money for basic needs, people will always need it and eventually prioritize it over health so they can meet their basic needs.

BristolUK

Honest, darling, I didn't get it at the strip joint, I must have got it at the nail salon.

caretaker

BristolUK

On the same page

scrubbedexpat091

Super Store is half-arsing spraying down the handles of the shopping carts as you enter the store, but thing is you get the cart out if the parking lot, so by the time you get the door, you have already touched the handle of the cart, so they do a half arsed spray and wipe, may as well do nothing at all, the tiny amount of spray they do is of no use, and they reuse the same rag over and over.

Stumpylegs

This was discussed at length between friends the other month - taking the UK as a prime example. Would you trade your free health care for the freedom to live how we did before compared to our April version of lockdown and likewise would you trade your free healthcare for a X% drop in earnings.

It then led onto how lack of hope, optimism, drive can kill a person ( people losing their fight with cancer days after their grandchild is born, the quick decline of physical health after a partner dies etc.) - https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-pcd092018.php

and whether for those nearer the end of their natural life, those in terminal hospital wards etc - have the lockdowns and the restrictions brought with them actually caused this, and been responsible for a number of excess deaths, and potentially some of the covid deaths.

Jerseygirl

Free healthcare? It isn’t FREE.

BristolUK

Jerseygirl

Bored? You are YouTubing in overdrive today Bristol.

Pulaski

Agreed 100% JG! .....

@Stumpylegs: "A drop in earnings"? When I arrived in the US I compared my after-tax income with that back in the UK and found that if I include my health insurance as a "tax" (a payroll deduction that is, for all practical purposes, mandatory), then I was still substantially better off paying for heath insurance than I was under the "free" NHS coverage in the UK, because the income tax I paid in the UK was so much higher. And before anyone comments on other taxes I pay in the US, NC sales tax is only around a third of the British VAT rate, and property taxes in NC were almost exactly the same as I was on my home in London - for a house four times the size and with 50 times the land area.

"Free" NHS care? No thanks!

scrubbedexpat091

Canada has a decent halfway point for healthcare, not as comprehensive as say the UK seems to be, but covers the basics without costing arms and legs per month for health insurance, while keeping taxes relatively low.

I know for myself, I pay about the same income tax per year as I did in the US, sales tax is higher by about 5% but then the government rebates some of that back every quarter so in the end probably paying about the same sales tax or less here, but but vast majority of our buying is for non-taxable items, we don't spend much on taxable goods, so sales tax is never a big issue for me, but for those with more income buying more taxable goods, I guess I can see sales tax becoming more annoying.

At least I know I can see the doctor, get lab tests, get a CT scan, etc and not have to worry about finding the money to pay for it, honestly I am probably healthier in Canada because I will actually go to the doctor, where in the US each visit cost $50+ dollars, which when low income isn't a small amount, and I would skip going to a doctor, having lab tests done etc because of the cost.

It wouldn't be until 6 figure income where I gather the tables would turn the other way.

Danny B

What an absolute horrible time to get married in England.

New rules for England

Under the new guidance for England released on Monday, small wedding and civil partnership ceremonies are allowed to go ahead only when they can be done safely and follow social distancing guidelines.

The advice says:

• Ceremonies should be kept "as short as reasonably possible" and limited as much as possible to just the parts that are legally binding
• No more than 30 people should attend
• Everyone should follow the 2m rule if possible, or 1m with extra safety measures
• No food and drink should be consumed as part of the event
• Hands should be washed before and after the exchanging of rings, and the rings should be handled by as few people as possible
• Singing, shouting or playing music at a volume that means people have to raise their voice should all be avoided. Instead of singing, recordings are suggested
• Speaking during the ceremony - for example saying the responses to the vows - should not be in a raised voice
• Playing instruments that are blown into should be avoided
• When singing or chanting is required, only one person is allowed to and the couple or venue should consider installing a clear screen
• Venues frequently used for weddings should mark the floor with tape or paint to help people maintain social distance.

Stumpylegs

Maybe I should have used the "illusion of free healthcare" or a "non privatised healthcare "(not that thats true either)
I wasn't suggesting that someone would be worse off in a none NHS society. I am fully aware that a free NHS has a cost to every person whether they use it or not, and much of that cost is absorbed as profit rather than used to deliver treatment.

The point about an x% drop in earnings was more around the pay cuts/pay freezes many of us lucky enough to stay employed during COVID 19 in the UK have had to take and at what point people would stop "protecting the NHS " as the continuation of doing so hits their wallets for years to come.

When discussed many folk are quick to go " i wouldn't take a 2% payout to protect the NHS". Despite the fact many are already in effect paying more than that.

Almost Canadian

Which just goes to show what happens when bureaucrats rule!. Why not simply state that only the couple are allowed to handle the rings?

Almost Canadian

Apologies for resurrecting a relatively old comment. This came up in my feed today and, while talking about a completely different issue, the sentiment holds true: