FA+
Shop
Back from trip, and long term plans
5 years ago
General
As people guessed from my recent posting, I was out of the country for two weeks, visiting 
Hamakei . And as the pic showed, we got engaged.
As to what that means is that some day in the future we hope to get married, and myself packing my bags and belongings and move to the UK. It's not something that will happen any day soon; this COVID crap really needs to be put under control and become history before I can think of doing anything.
I must confess feeling a bit anxious about it all. While I've been to the UK twice already, there are still many things that feel very different from life on my side of the world. And as expected, there are quite a few things that I feel a bit attached towards that I would have to let go, like my car, some types of stores, and even some food and food places.
But a big incentive for a move (besides of being with my partner) is healthcare. The American system leaves quite a bit to be desired, and it will remain so as long as corporate profits is the motivator. The thought that one major health issue could result in bankruptcy, or finding that care is being denied for some capricious excuse, is enough to keep one awake at night.
Of course I would either look for employment there and/or look to earn some money through art to contribute to the household bills and stuff.
For now, though, it is life as usual for this Carno.
Hamakei . And as the pic showed, we got engaged.As to what that means is that some day in the future we hope to get married, and myself packing my bags and belongings and move to the UK. It's not something that will happen any day soon; this COVID crap really needs to be put under control and become history before I can think of doing anything.
I must confess feeling a bit anxious about it all. While I've been to the UK twice already, there are still many things that feel very different from life on my side of the world. And as expected, there are quite a few things that I feel a bit attached towards that I would have to let go, like my car, some types of stores, and even some food and food places.
But a big incentive for a move (besides of being with my partner) is healthcare. The American system leaves quite a bit to be desired, and it will remain so as long as corporate profits is the motivator. The thought that one major health issue could result in bankruptcy, or finding that care is being denied for some capricious excuse, is enough to keep one awake at night.
Of course I would either look for employment there and/or look to earn some money through art to contribute to the household bills and stuff.
For now, though, it is life as usual for this Carno.
I was under the impression that you were Japanese, what about that place for an option? Last I heard, nothing really psycho's been happening over there.
umm...neither of us are Japanese, neither of us speak Japanese and we know very little about the place. Even if we COULD move there (which is unlikely given the first point) I'm not sure what the incentive would be. It's going to be tricky enough uprooting one of us, never mind both of us!
I've have to peruse back to get the specifics.
1. Brexit and the economic and social uncertainty it will bring
2. Britain's century-long history of homophobia and violence against LGBT people
2. Umm...what? Are you saying that homophobia started a hundred years ago and has continued ever since? [citation needed] please. Granted back in the colonial days we weren't exactly nice to gay people....or women, or people who weren't Caucasian...but we learned from our mistakes as any reasonable society should. Though it is quite bizarre that we're in a situation where many of the countries that have strong anti-LGBT laws now (such as Jamaica) are former British colonies that have been sticking to the laws WE gave them years ago. So it's kind of our fault. We allowed gay civil partnerships in 2005 and gay marriage in 2014, pre-dating the US a year and Japan by 3 years.
As for "violence against LGBT people" are you referring to individuals, or oppressive laws from the government which allow it? That's kind of a vague statement to make with nothing to back it up. Actual motive is difficult to establish in individual-on-individual violence which is why the whole concept of a "hate crime" is so tenuous. Were they attacked because they were gay? Or were they attacked for an entirely different reason and they just *happened* to be gay? We've had "gay villages" since the 18th Century, The Pew Global Attitudes Project last year found that 86% of British people thought that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared to 72% of Americans and just 68% of Japanese. So...I really don't know what you mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo.....United_Kingdom
I doubt there's a country in the world where you can't cite specific cases that have happened in the last few years. Nowhere is immune to this problem.
I hope things ease down soon and you can make your move. I, for one, would be happy to welcome you to the UK, as welcoming as it can be these days.
I'm sure you guys would find new things to enjoy together.
And healthcare is a pretty complex subject with no real best solution. While the US does have some very impressive advanced healthcare with good availability, the lump sum of money required to access said healthcare is too much for many.
The most obvious downside of the various European style of cheaper healthcare systems is the lower availability with a fair bit longer waiting times, and often lower quality from government mismanagement. Since there is no incentive for the average government worker to do a better job when you have no customers.
It's a bit strange to use the phrase "European style" when at least 60 countries worldwide including Canada and Australia have some form of universal healthcare for their citizens...and "cheaper"...for who, exactly? Just because you have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for treatment in the US doesn't make it "expensive" since most of the money goes to middle-men who actually have nothing to do with medicine, and even then just because something costs more doesn't automatically make it better.
"lower availability"? I'm not sure what that means as people don't get turned away at hospitals because they're "full" or "unavailable"
"Longer wait times" Granted, yes. If you want treatment which isn't considered essential such as cosmetic surgery then yes, you'll have to wait as we prioritise people based on their urgency and their Quality of Life. If you have an RTA and need treatment, then no, you won't have to wait for anything. And we won't even charge you several thousand dollars for the ambulance just because you didn't pre-book it.
"Lower quality". That's debatable. The health staff have the same qualifications and the drugs are often the exact same medicine you would get in the US...I'm not sure how else you would measure "quality".
"Since there is no incentive for the average government worker to do a better job when you have no customers."....that's a generic "Government bad, capitalism good" argument which doesn't apply specifically to health care. Besides the complete lack of evidence, I would counter that a capitalism based system such as that in the US has no incentive to do a better job as long as the shareholders are rewarded. That is the ultimate goal, not the health of the people. Kind of like how venture capitalists don't particularly care what your business does...they'll invest as long as you turn a profit.
But no, the NHS isn't perfect. There are two main issues, neither of which people want to admit to. Firstly, we have a government body called NICE whose job it is to approve medicines for distribution on the NHS. We don't have drug companies courting doctors with expensive golfing trips and fancy restaurants...NICE is the barrier. If they approve your drug, then NHS doctors can prescribe it. And they want to make damn sure it works and is good value for money. They aren't going to agree to distribute a drug that costs £10,000 a tablet and hasn't been proven to work. So of course this means it is harder to get so called "experimental" treatment on the NHS. But that doesn't cover 99% of cases anyway.
The other one is that it's grossly underfunded. Yes, it's budget has been rising slightly above inflation, but it doesn't take into account a crucial factor. An ageing population. As people get older they demand far more time and money from the health service, and the rise doesn't take this into account. If you add 50% to the number of 20-year-olds in the population, it only adds a small demand, mostly from accidents or genetic conditions. But if you add 50% to the number of 80-year-olds in the population, it adds a HUGE demand. I read somewhere a few months ago that an 80-year-old on average can take up to ten times as much care in a year as the average 30-year-old, in terms of time spent with healthcare workers, money spent on drugs, hospital visits, expenses etc...largely because their healthcare needs are more likely to be chronic rather than acute. If I break my leg I can be fixed and out within a few days. But an 80-year-old with a laundry list of conditions that need constant, ongoing treatment places far more of a drain on the services.
But no, we'd rather just say it's all down to immigrants. No, really. That's because the right-wing newspapers are mostly read BY these 80-year-olds, and there is no way they would ever admit to being a burden on the system. Let's blame that family whose name we can't pronounce who moved in down the street.
Sorry...went off on a bit of a tangent there. The NHS isn't perfect. But for most people's needs it's there when we need it. And if you are an outlier, you always have the OPTION to "go private" if you want to be seen quicker, or try an experimental drug, or stay in a fancier room with nicer food. It's not forced upon you like in the US. Pay or die.
The sheer number of "GoFundMe"s that appear on my Twitter timeline from Americans who can't pay their medical bills is fucking depressing. Somehow I doubt they think their system is working as it should be. And I don't want Kaa to ever be one of them.
I'm no big fan of the more extreme parts of the US type of capitalism as privatisation has ruined many services in the country I live, Sweden. And as a Train Driver I shudder when looking at the US railroad system with stretches of rail being owned by the various big railroad compaines, prioritizing their own traffic leading to a mess for the various passenger and cargo operators.
At the same time I also don't have the same faith I once had in my government and the various institutions surrounding it due to some extreme mismanagement in the last 30 years.
Like if I would get a heart attack I would be rushed to the hospital for emergency care or any other more serious condition like that where I'm in a lifethreatening medical situation.
What I mean with quality is that the healthcare here has been so strapped for cash since the 2000s that you often get the feeling that the doctor doesn't really believe you. So when you finally make the decision to get an appointment to finally find out if that strange feeling in your body is due to excess stress, or you joke to yourself, some serious sneaky condition like cancer. They ask some questions and take a look at you, maybe take some blood samples. But you always get the feeling that you are just another patient taking time and money out of their very limited budget, so you are sent away with the cheapest option "We recommend some lifestyle changes"or alternatively prescribe some drugs for you to try. And you don't really feel like you had any of your questions answered, and 8 visits later with more pain in your body each time, you finally find out that you have cancer that recently turned terminal. Now I could go private, but that isn't as common here since we're already paying among the highest taxes in the world in order to fund our healthcare in the first place. I have no idea where that money is going, seeing as the problems are getting worse each year. An increasing amount of people suffering from deep depression committing suicide before they can get help, and a culture of doctors being either reluctant or taught that they can't help people over the age of 70 since "We can't spend that much money to help you, You are going to die soon anyways." is what my now dead aunt was told when I went to the hospital with her a few years ago. Now I understand that of course they can't offer every single person walking in the expensive diagnostic treatments right away as that would be incredibly inefficient.
It is just so crazy to think that in the 1980s Sweden was known for it's healthcare and now it along with the insurance agency has become an uncaring machine that can only read numbers. And while I certainly agree with you on the US healthcare system having the ability to bankrupt someone. I just feel that I'm currently burning my cash for a system that might not even be equipped to help me should I get seriously sick. There is no longer the spirit that "We will do everything we can to help you get better."
It's difficult to adapt the systems to cope with this because it's just not something they were designed for when they were founded....and increasing taxes is never a vote winner. Far easier to just blame people who can't defend themselves. And still do nothing to improve things.
I was going to say that the US system and the "European system" are two different ways of tackling the same problem, namely healing the sick...but it's increasingly obvious that the US system doesn't have the same goals in mind. The "European system" is designed to treat sick people as sick people are a drain on resources (claiming welfare, lowering productivity etc) so it's in the government's interest to keep the population as healthy as possible so they can work and pay taxes. The US system's goal...is to make money.
Now of course the ideal system would be preventative rather than curative, but that's very difficult to achieve as whilst the cost of doing so is lower (if you can prevent someone from getting diabetes in the first place it's cheaper than treating them for the rest of their life) it's also much more difficult to measure..and you need statistics and quantitative results in order to calculate budgets and justify expenditure. It's easy to say "We stopped 10,000 people from smoking this year" but it's much harder to quantify "We prevented 5,000 people from taking up smoking this year" even though that's a better situation for both the patients and the government which has to fund it.
I do agree with you that you do feel like a burden on the health service and you can sometimes feel like they're not taking you seriously, but that's what happens when the number of patients goes up but the funding doesn't rise to match it. Staff and resources get more and more overworked and they have less and less time to deal with each patient. It's why I have no patience with timewasters and get enraged when people with minor ailments clog up the A&E (Emergency Room) when there are people with serious conditions being forced to wait because you've got a headache. Personally I try and avoid going to the doctor's...I think I've been twice in the last decade, but again, people in my age group do attend a clinic far less often than people 30-40 years older than me. Plus, I feel morally bad if a doctor prescribes me a pack of paracetamol..knowing that probably cost the health service about £12 when I could buy a pack for £0.30 down the road at the chemists..
What's the solution? I don't know. But I'd rather have a doctor that was rewarded for curing X sick people than a doctor that was rewarded for prescribing X doses of Medicol. Why do you think the US has been going through an opioid crisis in the last few years? People have been put on expensive drugs they don't need because the doctors get a kickback from Big Pharma.