#and it's like almost every other country that can afford it has universal healthcare you aren't special | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

robertreich · 4 years ago

Video

youtube

6 Crucial Races That Will Flip the Senate

This November, we have an opportunity to harness your energy and momentum into political power and not just defeat Trump, but also flip the Senate. Here are six key races you should be paying attention to. 1. The first is North Carolina Republican senator Thom Tillis, notable for his “olympic gold” flip-flops. He voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, then offered a loophole-filled replacement that excluded many with preexisting conditions. In 2014 Tillis took the position that climate change was “not a fact” and later urged Trump to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, before begrudgingly acknowledging the realities of climate change in 2018. And in 2019, although briefly opposing Trump’s emergency border wall declaration, he almost immediately caved to pressure. But Tillis’ real legacy is the restrictive 2013 voter suppression law he helped pass as Speaker of the North Carolina House. The federal judge who struck down the egregious law said its provisions “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.” Enter Democrat Cal Cunningham, who unlike his opponent, is taking no money from corporate PACs. Cunningham is a veteran who supports overturning the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United decision, restoring the Voting Rights Act, and advancing other policies that would expand access to the ballot box. 2. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a self-proclaimed moderate whose unpopularity has made her especially vulnerable, once said that Trump was unworthy of the presidency. Unfortunately, she spent the last four years enabling his worst behavior. Collins voted to confirm Trump’s judges, including Brett Kavanaugh, and voted to acquit Trump in the impeachment trial, saying he had “learned his lesson” through the process alone. Rubbish. Collins’ opponent is Sara Gideon, speaker of the House in Maine. As Speaker, Gideon pushed Maine to adopt ambitious climate legislation, anti-poverty initiatives, and ranked choice voting. And unlike Collins, Gideon supports comprehensive democracy reforms to ensure politicians are accountable to the people, not billionaire donors. Another Collins term would be six more years of cowardly appeasement, no matter the cost to our democracy. 3. Down in South Carolina, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is also vulnerable. Graham once said he’d “rather lose without Donald Trump than try to win with him.” But after refusing to vote for him in 2016, Graham spent the last four years becoming one of Trump’s most reliable enablers. Graham also introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship, lobbied for heavy restrictions on reproductive rights, and vigorously defended Brett Kavanaugh. Earlier this year, he said that pandemic relief benefits would only be renewed over his dead body. His opponent, Democrat Jaime Harrison, has brought the race into a dead heat with his bold vision for a “New South.” Harrison’s platform centers on expanding access to healthcare, enacting paid family and sick leave, and investing in climate resistant infrastructure. Graham once said that if the Republicans nominated Trump the party would “get destroyed,” and “deserve it.” We should heed his words, and help Jaime Harrison replace him in the Senate. 4. Let’s turn to Montana’s Senate race. The incumbent, Republican Steve Daines, has defended Trump’s racist tweets, thanked him for tear-gassing peaceful protestors, and parroted his push to reopen the country during the pandemic as early as May. Daine’s challenger is former Democratic Governor Steve Bullock. Bullock is proof that Democratic policies can actually gain support in supposedly red states because they benefit people, not the wealthy and corporations. During his two terms, he oversaw the expansion of Medicaid, prevented the passage of union-busting laws, and vetoed two extreme bills that restricted access to abortions.The choice here, once again, is a no-brainer.

5. In Iowa, like Montana, is a state full of surprises. After the state voted for Obama twice, Republican Joni Ernst won her Senate seat in 2014. Her win was a boon for her corporate backers, but has been a disaster for everyone else.

Ernst, a staunch Trump ally, holds a slew of fringe opinions. She pushed anti-abortion laws that would have outlawed most contraception, shared her belief that states can nullify federal laws, and has hinted that she wants to privatize or fundamentally alter social security “behind closed doors.” Her opponent, Democrat Theresa Greenfield, is a firm supporter of a strong social safety net because she knows its importance firsthand. Union and Social Security survivor benefits helped her rebuild her life after the tragic death of her spouse. With the crippling impact of coronavirus at the forefront of Americans’ minds, Greenfield would be a much needed advocate in the Senate. 6. In Arizona, incumbent Senate Republican Martha McSally is facing Democrat Mark Kelly. Two months after being defeated by Democrat Kyrsten SINema for Arizona’s other Senate seat, McSally was appointed to fill John McCain’s seat following his death. Since then, she’s used that seat to praise Trump and confirm industry lobbyists to agencies like the EPA, and keep cities from receiving additional funds to fight COVID-19. As she voted to block coronavirus relief funds, McSally even had the audacity to ask supporters to “fast a meal” to help support her campaign. Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and husband of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, became a gun-control activist following the attempt on her life in 2011. His support of universal background checks and crucial policies on the climate crisis, reproductive health, and wealth inequality make him the clear choice. These are just a few of the important Senate races happening this year. In addition, the entire House of Representatives will be on the ballot, along with 86 state legislative chambers and thousands of local seats.

Winning the White House is absolutely crucial, but it’s just one piece of the fight to save our democracy and push a people’s agenda. Securing victories in state legislatures is essential to stopping the GOP’s plans to entrench minority rule through gerrymandered congressional districts and restrictive voting laws — and it’s often state-level policies that have the biggest impact on our everyday lives. Even small changes to the makeup of a body like the Texas Board of Education, which determines textbook content for much of the country, will make a huge difference. Plus, every school board member, state representative, and congressperson you elect can be pushed to enact policies that benefit the people, not just corporate donors. This is how you build a movement that lasts.

#video #videos #2020 election

669 notes · View notes

letoscrawls · 4 years ago

Note

What are your Extremely Italian Opinions? Anything from politics to pasta, drop some hot takes

mmmmm good question! even though i'm not a proud italian as i'm very critical of this country and i'd love to live abroad in the future, i do have typical italian opinions that i'm ready to die for. I’m sure these will be mainly about food, but let’s see:

-say whatever you want, but italian food is the best food in the entire world, not only it’s healthy but it’s also delicious and no nation can compare :) no you can’t change my mind :) every time i watch Ratatouille i cringe so bad at the beginning when they say that French cuisine is known to be the best in the world??? that’s so false and i don’t even find it funny, we italians take food so seriously and if you dare criticize something about our food we take it very personal, yes, IT IS THAT DEEP.

-idk if it's a take but i find it funny that we don't use ice that much?? like i was so shocked to learn that smoothies are made WITH ICE?? we almost never use it, we definitely don't put it in coffee and we have this strange belief that ice gives you stomachache, especially if you want to take a bath, we usually wait two or three hours before taking a bath after a meal, especially if there's ice in it somewhere lol i think it's a typical Italian Grandma Advice but we all follow it religiously. Even though i know it's bizarre i can't help but wait at least two hours after my meal before having any kind of contact with water

-No one dubs movies and cartoons like italians. Our voice actors are superior (but the italian Rebels dub is terrible, don’t watch Rebels in italian, everyone sounds very bad except for Thrawn, surprisingly his voice better than the original and i've already talked about this in my ig stories some time ago haha) and i often watch shows and movies in italian even tho it's "trendy" nowadays to watch everything in english. Tbh i think that a country with a strong tradition of voice acting shouldn't neglect it in favor of the original language, just because something was made in english it doesn't make it better. For example, the prequel trilogy is insanely better in italian, while i love Hayden's performance as Anakin i think that sometimes...it lacks emotion? the italian dub makes up for those parts, i couldn't understand why international fans used to despise the PT so much at first, especially the acting. There isn't one single character in the prequels that sounds bad, really. Same thing goes for Disney classics, i find them 100% funnier in italian (the most memorable example is Emperor's New Groove, the main characters are voiced by some of the funniest comedians we have, they all did an amazing job), even tho some characters are voiced by celebrities who don't do voice acting on a regular basis the result is always phenomenal. Honorable mention to the Genie in Aladdin who is voiced by Gigi Proietti, an actor and comedian of immesurable talent who passed away a few days ago, his performance is on the same level of Robin Williams' imo. So yeah, i'm a huge fan of italian voice acting in case you didn't notice

-regarding politics, lots of people here say that we have the "best democracy in the world" or something like that.........eh, i highly doubt it. I hate this country because there is no meritocracy, you're most likely to succeed if you have good connections or a powerful family. The worst part is that this applies to EVERYTHING and it's terrible. Also there's a big imbalance between North Italy and South Italy, so it's hard to succeed and have access to a good education if you're born in the South and you're poor. And it's a shame. I was lucky enough to live near a very good university so i pay for taxes and nothing else, but only those who are born in wealthy families in the south can afford university in the north as universities in the south are not that good in general. it's really a shame bc south italy is freaking beautiful but the government doesn't spend the same amount of time, energy and money and that's also one of the reasons crime rates are so high there. truly every single issue in Italy could be resolved by funding our education system but most politicians don't give a flying fuck about it and it shows :/

-University in italy is considered a privilege, something that people do because they are too lazy to go to work and get "a real job". we have one of the lowest rates of student getting a degree in europe and yet a lot of people are expected to be jobless for years after graduating uni. it's crazy. there is no respect or consideration for university students since you're not obliged by law to attend one but it's your choice. university professors are terrible, they act like we don't have a personal life and in most cases will make everything so hard that you'll need to take an exam even 15 times before passing it. a friend of mine who is a prodigy in Math attended a really good university in Switzerland and he told me that you can take exams a max of 3 times there but you usually don't need to because they are much easier to pass?? also exams are so hard to pass, my degree is a living hell, you have to take multiple tests, do projects and assignments to pass one freaking exam, while the entire world has the paper system, so you basically write a paper and then the teacher grades it and guess what??? YOU LEARN STUFF ANYWAY. i hate that university in italy takes so much years, tears and mental energy to finish and this leads me to my next point

-healthcare. Italy has one of the best healthcare systems in the world because, well, it's free! You have some kind of bills to pay, but they are not as expensive as in the US, the country got a huge debt at some point in the 60s/70s (i guess??) to afford free healthcare but it was really worth it!! HOWEVER, i think it's pointless to have free healthcare for literally anything besides mental health. sadly, mental health is a tough topic here, if you suffer from a mental illness you're considered crazy, an attention seeker, incapable of being a normal citizen and stuff like that. therapists are super expensive and only wealthy people can afford them. personally, i can't afford one and i would love to since i suffer from anxiety and maybe other things (but i guess i'll never know since my country doesn't give a fuck lmao). and university students are most likely to have mental health issues due to the terrible conditions we live in, yet society ignores us, this results in very high suicide rates among students in their twenties. i honestly hate it so fucking much, especially because studying psychology is considered "easy" and you'll probably be jobless after your degree. psychologists are doctors, they deserve to be paid like any other doctor because they save lives, for real.

So uhm this was supposed to be funny but ended being very critical hahahaha

#ask #long post #THIS TOOK ME WEEKS TO WRITE WTF #hahahaha

60 notes · View notes

lightspeedtimetraveler · 4 years ago

Text

TO AMERICANS

I live in Norway. This is how it is in a developed country.

School;

- Free elementary school.

- Free middle school

- Free Highschool

* at the beginning of Highschool, we were required a computer. Either our own or from the school. It was about 400kr a year (about 50$), and we applied for a scholarship, something we have the right to just because we go to school and are kids.

- No dress code

* sure, not naked, and not skirts that shows off your underwear. But you can wear bare shoulders, bare knees, even bootyshorts are allowed.

- university is also free

- all school is free, unless you want to go to private schools

- private schools are basically the same as public, except you get Macs instead of regular computers, and just stuff like that

- One start learning English from like, third grade. And as soon as you start middle school, you start with either Spanish, French, or German (or other, if you have difficulties in learning language) By the end of High School, everyone knows more or less three languages

Healthcare;

- Free healthcare until you’re 16/18 y/o (depending on what you need)

- ‘Free’ healthcare, or very very affordable

- Free ambulance, but if you call it for anything other than an emergency situation, you get one hell of a fee

- Abortion is fu**ing legal.

- 12 months of mother-pension to take of the kid. Some months of father-pension as well (but I can’t remember the exact

Corona;

- Everyone who possibly could work from home, worked from home

- due to our obligations of computers, we had online school. All the way. Just no exams

- Everyone that lost their job, now gets money from the state till we get back to normal

Gays;

- Public, marriage, in schools, in church, wherever. Gays are just people.

- Gay marriage is just called marriage. We have pride is different cities. Parades, concerts, activities during these pride events

Economics;

- Taxes.

- We have middle-expensive taxes so that our less fortunate people can go to school, get healthcare, so that no one in our country is forced to be poor.

- If you are poor, your kid gets to go to school. They get to get healthcare. Just like everyone else. And the state takes care of you until you’re on your feet again

- Everyone living in Norway has three figures taken from their annual tax return published: their annual income, income tax paid, and total wealth. Yes, really!(Prior to 2013, this data was completely open and searchable by anyone. That has since changed though, and now a person is able to see who has looked up their own data. The thought behind this concept is that tax evasion becomes much more difficult to accomplish. If you're recording a low income and/or wealth but are driving around in a brand-new Tesla, the authorities are going to get suspicious.)

Other;

- We are ranked as one of the happiest places on earth.

- We have a law; “Allemannsretten”. (Translate; Every Man’s right) And it means, you can go anywhere. Nobody owns the forests, or the mountains. You own your garden and land of course, but everyone has a right to go anywhere as long as they don’t destroy anything and clean up after themself

- We all speak English.

- Every working person has a right of 5 weeks pay every year, and you’re basically required to use these weeks.

- We are one of the safest countries, with a very very low crime rate

- Prisons are used to rehabitate criminals, instead of punishing them.

- Highest number of electrical cars.

- No guns. No weapons. We barely let our police have guns in their cars. To get a gun, you have to go through tests, you can’t have a criminal record, you must store it in the right way, you have to have the ammo somewhere else or in a safe, and a lot more. But hey, if you’re not a criminal, why should this be a problem for you?

- Women are almost completely beside men. It’s barely a difference and it’s actively being changed. We have the same income for the same job/education.

- The Colonel-in-Chief of the Norwegian King's Guard is a Scottish penguin, Brigadier Sir Nils Olav

Yeah, we’re run by the state, but Americans. NOT EVERYTHING NON-CAPITALISTIC IS COMMUNISM. We’re run by the state, we have a lot of private stuff too.

Everyone has a right to education. To healthcare. Yo food.

We barely have any homeless, because we have homeless shelters. So if you’re homeless in Norway, it’s because you want to.

So please, tell me one more time, that America is amazing

#America #Norway #Economics #English #country #women #healthcare #people #Norway vs. America #Penguin

169 notes · View notes

somethingusefulfromflorida · 4 years ago

Text

It’s no secret that Republicans are anti-intellectual, but it makes you wonder what their end goal is? Why do they keep electing dumber and dumber presidents? Is it just to own the libs? Do they just not care? They’ll get what they want regardless of how smart their presidents are, so why always pick the low hanging fruit?

The only smart Republican of the last 60 years was Bush Sr, and he was a one-term wonder who rode Reagan’s coattails into office.

Nixon was notoriously incompetent as VP, almost beat Kennedy in 1960, threw what should have been a career ending shit fit in 1962 after losing the California governor’s race, but not only came back in 68 and win because Goldwater was so unpopular in 64, but won 72 in the greatest landslide in history up to that point. Corrupt to the bone, he resigned before he could be impeached for hiring burglars to steal dirt on a political opponent, covering it up, and lying about it.

Ford was appointed VP to replace scandal stricken Spiro Agnew, specifically chosen because he was known as an honest politician. His reputation evaporated the second he became president because his first act was to pardon the guiltiest man in the country; he lost handily in 76.

Reagan was an actor who wanted to play politician so he could hurt the people he didn’t like; blacks people, poor people, gay people, women. It was a power trip for him, and because he was good at reading cue cards and delivering jokes written by other people, everyone let him get away with murder. He committed treason by selling weapons to Iran; this isn’t hyperbole, the actual definition of treason includes giving aid to out enemies, and after the oil and hostage crises of the 70s, Iran was an enemy first and foremost. Oliver North took the blame and had his secretary shred the evidence, the President Bush pardoned everyone involved. Reagan won in an even bigger landslide than 72 in 84, and Bush won in a major upset against Dukakis in 88.

Bush lost in 92 in no small part because of Ross Perot splitting the ticket; no third party candidate has ever done better nationwide than Perot in 92, with 19% of the vote (though he didn’t win a single state, which some minor candidates have done). Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote. Forty-three percent! 57% of people voted against him, and he won. 92 was a farce, as was 96 with less than 50% voter turnout, the lowest in modern history. Perot ran again and got 8.4% of the vote, Republican Bob Dole only got 40.7%, and Clinton got 49.2%. This means that less than a quarter of eligible voters voted for Bill Clinton, and he still won. FARCE!

Al Gore rightfully won in 2000, but the conservative majority Supreme Court stole it from him. Florida was too close to call; whichever candidate won it would become president. George W. Bush’s brother Jeb was governor, and he ordered the federally mandated recount be stopped, breaking the law. The Supreme Court decided not to restart the recount for no discernible reason besides they wanted Bush to win. He was notoriously dumb, stereotypically dumb, so dumb a lot of people thought it was an act and voted for him because they thought he was a secret genius who was just pretending to be a cowboy running for president off his daddy’s legacy. He was the stupidest president we had ever had up to that point, and hired a lot of smart people to do horrible things so he could claim plausible deniability. That Obama didn’t send Dick Cheney to the Hague was a deafening silence. Bush only won re-election in 2004 because he started a war in Iraq in 2003 and the country didn’t want to change horses midstream; same exact tactic his daddy used, only this war lasted longer than the Gulf and “worked” as planned.

2008 was a ceremonial race; McCain didn’t stand a chance. He was not incompetent, but his running mate was. Sarah Palin was even dumber than Bush, and like Gingrich in the 90s was responsible for a conservative revolution we’re still feeling today. Barack Obama wasn’t an amazing president, but he was an AMAZING candidate. Everybody loved Obama in 2008, he won more votes than any candidate in history until 2020. McCain was a career moderate, and after the last 8 years of failure both parties were running on a platform of “I am not George W. Bush.” Turns out a young charismatic smart black man is less like Bush than another old white guy.

Obama lost a ton of momentum going into 2012 because he didn’t really DO anything his first term. His only major accomplishment was the Affordable Care Act, which was an act of the Democratic congress than anything else, and it still wasn’t nearly as progressive as it needed to be (the US is still the only developed nation without universal healthcare). Romney, a Republican governor from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, could have beaten him were he not a classist piece of shit. Romney hated poor people more than Reagan, and once wore brown face to a campaign event to make himself look more like Obama (they didn’t paint his hands or neck, just his face). Obama made a lot of promises he didn’t keep, in no small part because of the Tea Party and the devastating losses in 2014 (we suffer under Mitch McConnell because of that).

2016 was a dumpster fire that shouldn’t have happened, and if either party had run a different candidate, it wouldn’t have. Sanders would have beaten Trump, Clinton would have beaten Cruz. It was a perfect storm of a very unpopular and insincere grandma running against a cartoon supervillain. You couldn’t repeat that with what we know now. Your vote in 2016 came to represent who you were as a person; people took it to the extremes, and the sunk cost fallacy made the entire Republican party shift so far rightward that we have actual concentration camps now and NOBODY GIVES A SHIT! Trump was a game show host, a used car salesman famous for being tacky and dumb and offensive. He was KNOWN for running his companies into the ground, that was his MO, he made a career out of bankruptcy, and Republicans still can’t believe that he drove us into the worst economic depression since the last Republican (history repeat itself, whoop-dee-doo). Biden won in 2020 because of record turnout, though 2020 was closer to the intentional walk of 2012 than the home run of 2008 in terms of enthusiasm for the candidates.

If we’ve learned anything its that Republicans just keep getting worse and worse, so it’s getting hard for me to imagine what 2024 has in store. Will Trump risk losing the popular vote 3 times in a row for a second term? i think he’ll pretend to so he can scam millions of dollars out of his base, but he’ll either lost the primaries and tank the Republicans by running third-party, or he’ll drop out and endorse one of his spawn. If Biden decides not to run in 2024, the nomination will almost certainly go to Kamala Harris, at which point I expect the Republicans to run a woman as well, so that we’re guaranteed the first woman president; she’ll be young, and white, and blonde. My money’s on Ivanka. Kamala vs. Ivanka will be a repeat of the 2016 dumpster fire, only worse because then everyone would be acting like both candidates are feminist icons, #GirlPower #SheRunsTheWorld #WarCrimesAreBetterWithTwoXChromosomes If Biden DOES run again, then I suspect the Republican pool will be wide early on (Prick Scott, Ron DeathSantis, Uncle Tom Cotton, Nikkki Haley, you name it), only to shrink before the primaries as they all coordinate to get behind someone strong enough to defeat an incumbent.

Republicans are very good at coordinating; they are the party of “Follow the Leader.” Whoever is in charge has 100% authority, no ifs, ands, or buts, no questions asked, just follow orders. It would be easy to call them lemmings, but it’s more insidious than this. They run dumb candidates for president, but have very smart people working behind the scenes to do horrible things. They’re willing to follow orders blindly to ensure that the party prospers, whereas Democrats are chicken running around with their heads cut off. There are no Democratic leaders. Pelosi? Schumer? Nobody likes those dinosaurs! The only really popular Democrats are progressives, and they will never have power as long as the moderates have a majority of the caucus. AOC could be a senator someday; she could replace Schumer whenever he retires, but that would hinge on her not having any moderate primary challengers. Moderates are still very popular because they are seen as “electable,” even though they never DO anything once elected. Progressives have big ideas and the concrete plans to get them done, but the moderate establishment is afraid of losing power, and would rather placate the other side doing nothing, changing nothing, making no waves. The party needs to shift leftward, or the country is doomed.

I would suggest the progressives splitting off to form a third party, but that would almost certainly destroy left-wing politics in this country as every safe seat would become split. In an ideal world, it would be a nominal change; they would be the Progressive Democratic Party, they would continue to run in blue districts and caucus with Democrats on votes, but would advertise themselves as anti-establishment. They would be like the New Democrats in Canada, which now that I think about it is a very bad idea because the New Democrats have no power and end up giving more votes to the Liberals and Conservatives instead. The Progressive solution is intended to show the caucus that the moderates don’t have total control, but it would end up with the moderate Democrats shooting themselves in the foot, running against Progressives in every seat, handing them to the Republicans. Every election cycle people act like a loss would spell “the end of the _____ party,” but this would actually be it for the Democrats. It would be a turning point, like the 1960s, with millions of people changing parties out of principle, a major shift. A Red Scare

I just want to crawl in a hole and die. I hate politics.

9 notes · View notes

contempoyanna · 4 years ago

Text

Poverty and Inequality: have we progressed from it?

(source: https://grpshorts.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-do-we-solve-philippines-squatter.html)

Before I start, I have a question. Have you ever been to the slums or the squatter areas in your country - like in the image above?

No matter how rich and developed your country may be, these areas exist and in them are people whom our parents usually use as examples of who not to be in the future.

People who have no educational attainment, considered poor because of the lack of financial resources, no access to healthcare and clean water - people who are in poverty. At the surface, we only know poverty as the poor or the needy people. Those who lack stable income to sustain or support themselves and, or, their families in terms of basic necessities - such as food, clothes, water and shelter. However, is this all that poverty is? How does inequality affect poverty? Is the capitalist system the cause or the solution? Would globalization effectively decrease and end poverty? Let me give you my opinion on these questions based on my own research (yes, I did my research) - will cite my sources at every section to prove it. Anyways, relax and grab a drink. I am quite the talker so this may take longer than it should.

What exactly is poverty?

For starters, poverty is a situation we all find complex and a controversy. As Heywood (2011) would say, poverty, at the face of it, is simply a state of being deprived of life’s necessities - which was considered an absolute standard.

Why was it an absolute standard? Having no necessities makes it difficult to sustain human life. This is what constitutes being in absolute poverty.

(source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html)

Absolute poverty is in accordance to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (see image above) - hence, is established on the idea of physiological needs. In Maslow’s hierarchy, physiological needs are basic and should be prioritized.

Absolute poverty makes sense, it is how poverty is usually explained to kids when they are young (e.g. mothers telling their children to study well in order not to be poor). However it does miss an important aspect of poverty.

Relative poverty, on the other hand, covers what absolute poverty missed - the human factor. Rather than an economic phenomenon, it sees poverty as a social phenomenon. Why? Because there are people who can afford the basic necessities but feel poor because they do not have what others have.

Simply put, relative poverty is when the people feel deprived in terms of their standards, conditions and pleasures that most in the environment they live in enjoy.

Pasha (2014) also considers relative poverty as a classification of poverty but with a different definition. Relative poverty, according to Pasha (2014), is considered when a household’s income level is below the standard of the average national income.

On the other hand extreme and moderate poverty are (in my opinion) subcategories of absolute poverty. Extreme poverty is when the household cannot meet the basic needs for life survival and Moderate poverty is when you can afford it but only the bare minimum of it.

Any key trends in poverty and inequality globally?

According to World Bank (2020), global extreme poverty has been constantly decreasing over the last 25 years in 145 of their client countries. From their findings, the global extreme poverty rate fell from 10.1% in 2015 to 9.2% in 2017 - which, apparently, is equal to 689 million of the world’s population to live with on less than $1.90/day.

(source: https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/poverty-and-inequality/trends-and-future-projections-for-extreme-poverty-and-inequality/poverty-situation-and-trends/)

We could assume that the economic growth among many countries has helped reduce poverty; nevertheless, there are still what we call the poorest countries who have the poorest population in terms of income. In Rohwerder (2016)’s article, they presented World Bank’s graph in 2016 comparing which countries (in terms of income, again) housed the most poor. As you can see above, in the 1990s the low-income countries housed most of the poor; though, in 2012 it showed that lower-middle income countries housed the most poor.

This just shows that, yes, economic growth may have played a role in poverty reduction; however, in turn, this possibly increased inequality - in terms of absolute inequality.

According to the Danish professor, Prof. Finn Tarp (n.d.), global inequality has been declining relatively yet absolute inequality measures contrast this finding. In the period of 1975 - 2010, global inequality considerably rose and the income growth present in India and China had very little effect on this.

I do not want to get technical since my understanding may be incorrect; but reading the discussion in Prof. Tarp’s presentation, centrist inequality trends uncovers a certain peak around 2005 and has, since then, significantly diminished.

Capitalism to poverty: eliminate or reinforce?

(source: https://borgenproject.org/capitalism-is-helping-end-global-poverty/)

Ideally, capitalism was meant to provide equal profit and opportunities for the benefit of everyone in the world. It was supposed to be a structure (?) that will distribute wealth between people and countries fairly and, in turn, eliminate both poverty and inequalities.

However, in reality, capitalism has been the driving mechanism of inequality between the rich and the poor. It continues to widen the gap between the rich and the poor since the system makes the rich richer, and those in poverty becomes even more poor.

So... in my opinion?

Capitalism meant to eliminate poverty however because of different factors (and well human error if I may add) this capitalist society we live in reinforces poverty. Why? Simply because of income inequality.

As I have discussed in my previous vlog about Capitalism, profits are made by means of consumers and consumers do labor in order to have profits which will fund their spending capability. However, private entities and companies alike wanted to profit more without affecting the price of their product - so they chose to decrease salaries of their laborers while also (somewhat) demanding them to spend.

Globalization: Increase or decrease global poverty?

(source: https://littleusgoneglobal.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/globalization-and-its-impact-on-the-caribbean-the-poverty-and-inequality-suffered/)

Alright, for this section I will state that I am basing purely from Andrew Heywood’s book titled Global Politics since their view is what I understood the best (and it is simpler to understand).

Globalization has always been a topic of debate whether or not we (as in all of us) will actually benefit or will it only benefit the ones who are already on top? Supporters of this will say ,“It will benefit all of us in the long run.”, and conclude that it is the most possible way to eliminate and narrow down both poverty and inequality worldwide - hence globalization should decrease poverty.

In addition to this, if you do research on globalization and poverty, most statistics will present data that proves globalization did decrease poverty in the global sense.

However, from what I observe, globalization has so far increased global poverty because it created internalized inequality within the countries as it defeated the inequality between them.

Also, Heywood (2011) stated that the theory of ‘trickle down’ (from what I understand is an important theory for globalization), which declares that the poor and the rich will equally benefit from the free-market policies in time by means of economic growth and a general rise in living standards, was debunked almost everywhere in the world.

Conclusion?

Global poverty and inequality is present all over the world. There has been many campaigns and solutions proposed to eliminate both of them for the benefit of human development however none has been proven as effective as the present solutions (capitalism and globalization). Though, in my belief at least, capitalism and globalization are one of the driving factors that increase global poverty and inequalities whether it be between countries or within the country.

That’s the end of that. Re-blog or drop an ask so we can discuss - I want to know your opinions on this matter.

References

Heywood, A. (2011). Poverty and Development. In Global Politics (pp. 352–382). Palgrave Macmillan.

Pasha, M. K. (2014). How can we end poverty? In J. Edkins & M. Zehfuss (Eds.), Global Politics: A new introduction (2nd ed., pp. 429–471). Routledge.

Rohwerder, B. (2016). Poverty and Inequality: Topic guide. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Tarp, F. (n.d.). Global Inequality - Trends and Issues. United Nations University - UNU WIDER. https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Events/PDF/Presentation-slides-Global-inequality-Finn-Tarp.pdf

World Bank. (2020). Poverty. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview#:~:text=The global extreme poverty rate,%245.50 a day in 2017.

#GEWORLD #Poverty #Global Poverty #Globalization #Capitalism #Global Inequality

3 notes · View notes

fvkmyoneandonly · 4 years ago

Text

Resources/Info for self dxers who want a professional diagnosis

I have seen a lot of the pro self diagnosis individuals on this website preaching the idea that a self-dx is the only possible thing for some people due to economic or social circumstances. While this may be true for a very small minority, I took the initiative to compile some resources for people in the USA who would like an actual psychological assessment so they can get help for their illness, but may not have the resources to do so.

1) https://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/

This website is connected to the US dept of health and human services, and allows you to type in your zip code so you can see the mental health services in your area. You can sort it by mental health assessment, healthcare practitioners, and substance abuse help. The services listed will also have the phone numbers and websites underneath.

On this same website, you can call 1-800-662-4357 or 1-800-487-4889 to determine which service would be the best for you financially or socially speaking. While states differ in laws about minors seeing physicians on their own, these phone lines will provide the best option for you, whether you’re a minor that doesn’t have parental approval to be screened, you work full time and can’t afford to leave work for a screening, or if you simply can’t afford it.

Something a lot of you may not know- mental health services and screenings are actually often based on a sliding scale according to income. Usually, when people are talking about how expensive it is in the US to obtain a diagnosis, they are only referring to the psychiatrists and psychologists who do not take insurance, or the ones who intentionally set prices high such that their facility can be referred to as an upscale therapy treatment center (i.e. only serving 1%ers), when that is just a very vocal/well advertised minority of mental health services in the country.

In the current climate caused by COVID-19, many mental health professionals have started providing consultations and sessions over the phone, and send a prescription if necessary to your pharmacy without using you as a middleman to turn in the prescription. Because of the good this service has done for people who don’t live in densely populated areas with mental health services nearby (Wyoming, North/South Dakota, etc), the vast majority of MHF will be maintaining their phone and video appointments and consultations, so that distance from a professional is no longer as much of an issue.

2) Contact your local training institute/university hospital for psychotherapists

As a lot of you know, doctors and psychotherapists alike need field training in order to pass their exams to become a professional in a private practice. Allowing a student in a training institute nearby to psychoanalyze you, with the help of a professional afterwards (legally they need to review the analysis) is always free for the first session, and they may provide free sessions for as long as two years in some cases. The catch with this option is that you have to commit to a certain amount of sessions each week, for a period of 1-2 years, in order to attend the sessions for free.

As for University Hospitals, those that are qualified to train students will almost always put them to work in their hospital/outpatient health center for training, and they always use a sliding scale for payment.

3)https://openpathcollective.org/open-path-staff/

This website is connected to a nonprofit organization that will match you, based on your income and budget, with affordable mental health services in your area. It can be as little as $10 a visit, and allows you to input the amount of people/dependents in your family so that the match is more accurate to your budget.

SEE ALSO:

If you have insurance already, call your insurance company before you visit a facility and explore the options it provides. Most insurance plans offer a free or highly discounted initial visit to a psychotherapist so long as they’re in your network.

On that note, if possible, ALWAYS start with a therapist in your network. The google search for therapists near you will always highlight the therapists who cost the most/don’t take insurance because 1) they pay for the spot and 2) they often write fake reviews to maintain the highest rating. When it comes to therapists, the google 1-5 star ratings are MEANINGLESS- people see a 3 star therapist and believe they’re shitty, but in actuality, people who write glowing reviews of how nice their therapist is are really just saying “My therapist is a yes man and agrees with everything I say, so I must be completely right”. This doesn’t pertain to all of them, mind you, but a therapist is not supposed to coddle you and be your best friend and excuse all of your questionable actions- if you do something wrong, or if your mental illness has caused you to do/see something differently than it was perceived by everyone else, they are supposed to tell you you’re wrong. If you’re looking for a therapist that tells you everything you want to hear, you’re not going to get anything out of therapy, and you’ll be wasting everyone’s time.

If a therapist starts operating on a diagnosis you don’t agree with, ASK THEM WHY. It is usually because, as mandated by medical practice, a healthcare provider has to start with the most obvious initial answer, and then work up towards other illnesses if you don’t respond to treatment. With regard to personality disorders, it is common practice as mandated by the APA to avoid diagnosing a child/teenager with a PD, because a lot (a LOT) of people misconstrue teenage behavior with symptoms of a personality disorder. This doesn’t mean a teenager can’t have one, but a teenager shouldn’t go into therapy expecting to be diagnosed with BPD or NPD because it is incredibly unlikely, unless it is an extreme case. EVERY provider is supposed to start with the most common answer first.

With regards to the sliding scale payment system- most therapists and psychologists offer this, but will only mention it when they are asked about it. It is always a good idea, no matter where you’re calling, to ask about the possibility of a sliding scale system.

#self dx #self diagnosis #anti self diagnosis #professional diagnosis #actually adhd #actually autistic #bipolar #bpd #npd #mental health #therapy #therapist

3 notes · View notes

smokeybrand · 4 years ago

Text

The Rising Tide Raises All Ships

I don't understand people who are so ardently against social systems. Like, it's pulling eye-teeth just to have what little we do. I can't tell you how many f*cking time some MAGA cultist attacks food stamps or welfare like it's the worst thing ever but it's like, the ones who abuse it like you say, look like you. They don't look like me. There's always bad actors in any system, but if the majority carries on the way they should, then that system should function regardless. We know it can because it's being executed in real time, all over the world. There's a reason why the happiest places on earth, have the most expansive social welfare systems. Its fine to drive capitalism, no one's telling you not to work hard, but if we expanded those processes, everyone benefits. If everyone contributes a little more to the pool, all of our boats rise with the tide. I mean, seriously, if 2020 has taught us anything, it's that the systems we have in pace right now, don't work. They are easily exploited, easily manipulated, and completely counter intuitive to living life. There is a literal f*cking plague going on and our president is forcing people back to work and kids back to class because the economy. If that don't scream broke and needs fixing, I don't what does.

Free Healthcare means no worries going to the doctor. Paper cut, baby delivery, broken bone, or f*cking cancer, there'd be no stressing over how to pay those ridiculous bills. They wouldn't be ridiculous. I think in Canada an ambulance ride is, like, $230 dollars, average, depending on circumstances. In some places, it's as low as $45 and others, as high as $385. The average here in the States is closer to $1200 f*cking dollars. For just the ambulance. That's not even beginning to address the hospital visit and hope you don't an extended stay. These mother*ckers gave me a bill for close to $50,000 for my two week stay the first time I almost died. Bro, there's no way I am ever going to pay that. The f*ck is you saying? I read an account of someone going to the emergency room in the Philippines and it cost her $15 dollars. To see the doctor. It would have been free but she's not a citizen. More than anything, universal healthcare would force Big Pharma to price their medications appropriately. There would have affordable prescriptions for everyone. When I left my job, I lot my insurance. When I checked prices on my meds, just a single prescription was $400 f*cking dollars for one month's worth. In Canada, that prescription would have been $15. The ill thing? The $400 dollar one was the cheapest I could find stateside. I take five medications for my heart. Uninsured, I'd be dropping close to $3800 a month, on sh*t I need to live. Who the f*ck has a loose $3800 when they have to pay that much in rent every month? Insulin is, like, $300 for 10 days worth here. In Canada, it's f*cking $30. Sh*t's even cheaper in Egypt. Small businesses wouldn't have to worry about employee healthcare or anything like that. If you have more than two employees, the cost you save in insurance coverage is more than enough to offset that tax increase. You'd be able to actually pay a more livable wage, while pocketing more profit at the same time. How is any of this bad? How can you spin this sh*t as a negative?

Free education means a more literate populace. We wouldn't have near as many Anti-Vaxxers and Flat Earthers. Motherf*ckers would understand the science of social distancing and mask wearing during a goddamn pandemic. I wouldn't be so f*cking mad having to dumb myself down just to interact with society. If we follow the Nordic system, you get your four years worth of education, graduate with a proper degree, and get placed into a position immediately out of college to tenure in your focus for the next four years. It's not an internship but a real job. You not only get a degree, but you immediately start earning a living in that field, while accumulating experience. Once you complete your four year employment obligation, you can continue your employment, start the process over with a new major in mind, or you're free to travel abroad with four years experience and a BA in your pocket. Not only would the populace be more literate, more people would be employed thus stimulating the economy. Those that enter into science and engineering, would have to innovate in their fields for four years, minimum, so you'd have hungry minds creating the future, just like back in the day when “America was great” or whatever. More education, means more jobs, means a stronger economy, means less crime. Again, how is this a bad thing? You wouldn't even have to do away with private college or studying whatever you want. If there wasn't a free program to take advantage of, just pay for your classes. I'm sure there'd still be grants and scholarship and financial aid available for aspiring painters or wannabe film makers, or any number of vanity degrees. F*ck it, man, if you want to go to Harvard just for the clout, you can still totally do that. F*ck, dude, you can do it after getting your free degree even. Graduate school, bro. Motherf*cker can be making six figures paying that stupid, clout chasing, tuition out of pocket because you can afford it with the job you got with that free degree. That's the beauty of the Nordic system; Everyone gets what they want.

That's just the surface of these benefits. I'm not even going to go into what universal income, maternity leave, vacation time, strong unions, and subsidized child care. I'm not even going to touch on how prisons over there are built to rehabilitate, not to humiliate and effectively enslave. For Profit prisons are the modern plantations. Look that sh*t up. I'm not even going to go into detail about the benefits collective legalization for all drugs and how crime plummeted because of it, or how they treat addiction like a mental illness and not a criminal offense, or the way they house their homeless and treat them humanely, while transitioning them into society with counseling, job placement, and social work. All of this, for, maybe, an extra hundred or two a year. That's, what? An extra $30 a month out of your check? Less than $10 a f*cking week? That one trip to Starbucks. That's two Quarter-Pounders. That's nothing. How does that math not work? How do these universal benefits, not jive with everyone? How does this sh*t not make sense to people, when you can see it working the world over? The illest thing in this whole situations is the fact that we, as the US, have absolutely more than enough to implement this system, this type of social democracy which benefits everyone, if we just rearranged our budget. Admittedly, we couldn't just implement the healthcare out the box. I mean, we could, but that would entail getting motherf*ckers who make trillions, like Amazon, Facebook, and Tesla as well as Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos, to pay their fair share without circumventing said responsibilities Corporate Welfare is crippling the working American and people are too dumb to even pay attention to it, distracted by buzzwords like “communism” and “immigrant.” So we do the free education thing first. That's only $4 billion a year. I checked. That's pittance compared to the defense budget.

Motherf*ckers wouldn't even need to “tax the rich” or “hold them accountable” if we just cut the defense budget. We can keep pretending that trickle down works and that Wall Street works for us and not corporate gluttons and that Reaganomics works, and whatever else the conservatives want us all to believe. Whatever, right? The US spends $650 billion on defense. That is, quite literally, $400 billion more than the next country, China. The rest of the world, minus the US and China, spends a collective $831 billion. That's an average of less than $50 billion a year, worldwide. F*ck, if you add China back into that, it's still less than $65 billion a year. Did i mention that these are yearly budgets? And these are old numbers. My guy, we can afford to drop a few billion of that defense budget. We can probably skim $50 billion and enrich a lot of people's lives but we don't even need that much. Drop $4 billion off of that gratuitous $650 tril, and you can fund free education for everyone. Following the Nordic system, that means more jobs. That means more taxes. That means a better economy and more revenue to implement the universal health care, which would further lessen the burden of employers and employees, putting even more money back into everyone's pockets, which would grow the economy even more. Happy and secure people, spend more money. The only people this system hurts, are those hurting us with the current system. Are they literally too dumb and/or selfish to let go of a little extra and uplift all of us? How do you argue that math? No one loses but the people forcing you to lose right now, in real time. F*ck, man, 2020 has exposed this entire system and there are still people who will die for a country that won't even give you enough money to be safe during a whole ass plague and I don't understand that at all.

1 note · View note

dirtyrottensocialist · 4 years ago

Text

America Has A Compromise Problem

Compromising is important, especially if you want to get anything done. Like any give and take situation, the deal has to be appealing to both sides. This can be difficult enough when the two sides are somewhat close together already, but what if they aren’t? What if one side wants something that is indisputably harmful to the other side? America’s compromises as of late aren’t really compromises at all.

I’m going to talk for a moment about the Overton window. From Wikipedia: “The Overton window is the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse.” America’s current Overton window, at least when you watch any kind of news or professionally published widespread media, is somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. That’s what the media covers, it’s what is discussed as acceptable in many circles, and it is vastly different from most other developed countries.

The idea that universal healthcare is a “far left” idea is absolutely laughable in places like Denmark or Germany or New Zealand. It’s even laughable for many members of America’s younger generations. America’s hyper-capitalistic ideals have pushed the Overton window so far right that it’s considered “centrist” to think that antifa (the position of being against fascism - you know, the thing that Nazis did) is just as bad as being a Nazi. Basically someone is saying “we should kill all the Jews,” someone else is saying, “actually we should not kill any Jews” and the centrist says “wait, wait, wait, what if we compromise and only kill some of the Jews?” as if that’s an acceptable answer.

Media in America is largely owned by corporations. As such, the owners of most of these media outlets are actively invested in making sure the Overton window in America never skews far enough left so that they will lose profits. The ultra rich control the narrative, not allowing for anything on the actual left to see the light of day for discussion.

The reality is that there is a large portion of Americans, particularly in the Millennial and Gen Z ages, that are considerably to the left of the Overton window. You can see it in the protests that are happening all over America (and yes, they ARE still happening). These protests are largely led by young people who are tired of being dealt a bad hand by the economy, racism, climate change, exploitative healthcare, and many other systemic problems. Media has softened the demands to defund the police by saying, “no one actually wants to abolish police” even though that’s exactly what many people on the left want. There are real leftists living in your communities. Socialists. Anarchists. Communists. People who believe that the workers should own the means of production (no private companies). People who believe in all housing being free (eliminating landlords). People who believe money as a concept should not exist because it leads to haves and have-nots (only resource-based economy). People who believe there should be no president, no nations, completely open borders (as much as centrists will tell you that no one believes this, there are real people who whole-heartedly do believe in open borders). The growing left movement in America has grown very tired of agreeing to compromises that don’t actually do anything for their agendas or beliefs.

So now it comes to election season and we are faced with some serious choices. Decades of voting for the lesser evil has gotten us to this point. Skyrocketing unemployment, billionaires increasing their wealth by 50% profiting off of a pandemic, price gauging life saving drugs, a minimum wage that has been stagnant for more than a decade, college and housing costs pricing more and more people out of homes and education, not to mention a pandemic that threatens to be the deadliest disease we have ever seen because people are more concerned with making sure billionaires don’t lose money than making sure that everyone survives. America is a pit of despair right now. There are popular jokes about 2020 apocalypse bingo cards because of the increasing absurdity of circumstances in every passing month.

But here we are. Election season. It’s shaping up to be a showdown between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The Overton window tells us that Joe Biden is the obvious compromise candidate, somewhere between Sanders and Trump. But that alienates an entire large group of people and potential voters, mostly those under 40. Joe Biden, the man who crafted the 1994 crime bill is not an appealing compromise for those who want to abolish police. Joe Biden, the man who has been credibly accused of rape, is not an appealing compromise for those who have experienced sexual assault and become physically sick at the thought of another abuser (see Brett Kavanaugh) being put in a high position of power. Joe Biden, the man who has said he would veto Medicare for All if it came across his desk, is not an appealing compromise for those who have been rationing insulin trying to pay the bills, eat, and also afford life giving medicine. Joe Biden is not an appealing compromise for those of us for whom Bernie Sanders WAS the compromise.

For many people my age, the only America we have known is the America that does nothing but benefit the most wealthy. We have seen countless black Americans murdered by a violent state. We have seen thousands upon thousands of people declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, and many more die because they could not afford care. We have seen our country refuse to do anything meaningful about climate change because the government is essentially owned by oil companies and their lobbyists. We have seen and experienced a massive student debt crisis that is making it almost impossible to get ahead. We’ve attempted to mitigate these travesties by voting “blue,” for the lesser evil, for the person with slightly less terrible policies. We’re tired of compromises that don’t concede anything to us at all. We’re tired of electoral politics that force us to choose between Voldemort and Darth Sidious. For many leftists, Bernie Sanders was our last hope for electoral politics.

One of my favorite Democrats once said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” I would advise the DNC to consider this heavily when selecting their platform this year. It’s time to try a compromise that’s actually in the middle of the electorate for a change. If we are unable to do this, the guillotine jokes may end up not being jokes anymore.

0 notes

robert-c · 5 years ago

Text

Obstacles to Real Health Care Reform

I’m not interested in detailing the pros and cons of any specific version or proposal of the health care reform debate. Partly because they change so often and mostly because I don’t think that’s the real problem with getting support for reasonable reform. I do have some ideas of what is essential for real health care reform. But first, why is this so hard to discuss intelligently?

For 40 years we have been on a trend of political and cultural thinking that emphasizes personal self-sufficiency and glorifies personal enrichment. These ideas attach themselves to some very old and long running American beliefs and, when not pushed too far, they are responsible for very good things in our country. However, as you might have guessed, I think they have gone too far, and the health care reform “debate” is just one example.

There is a certain level of hypocrisy in the scare stories that are circulated. One of which is that care will be rationed. Anyone who thinks care isn’t rationed now just hasn’t been seriously ill lately, or isn’t paying close attention. Even if you are lucky enough to have affordable insurance, the insurance companies have their own rules about what sort of care you can receive under your coverage; the diagnosis you must have in order to get this treatment, the treatment you must try first, the drugs that will (and won’t) be approved for your conditions. So is it really rationing that’s being opposed, or who’s doing the rationing? Or maybe rationing is OK as long as you’re rich enough to get around it? This belief certainly plays to the well to do, and more importantly, the “well to do wannabes.” And finally, if there is to be rationing of care, should it be done by an entity with a profit motive that incents denying care, answerable only to the largest bloc of shares, or by doctors at most reviewed by an entity subject (at least in part) to the will of people?

Then there are the supposed solutions that warm some hearts – savings plans with tax credits etc. It strikes all the right chords, people pay for their own medical, they have to take responsibility (and the tax payers don’t), the missed taxes from the credits are more efficient than a government plan (because “everyone knows” private savings and investment is better than government spending). The problem with this approach is that it ignores several fairly obvious facts.

The first and most critical is that the median income in the US is about $32,000 per person or about $61,000 per household (median household is just under 2 people). At that level of income after necessities (let alone putting something away for retirement) there would not be much left over for a health savings account. But even if the household could put $6,000 a year aside for health care savings (almost 10% of their pretax income) it certainly wouldn’t reach the levels needed for even a short trip to a hospital for many, many years, especially when it would also have to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions. And let’s recall what the word “median” means. That’s the income where half of the people are below and half are above. If the ‘half level�� isn’t enough it should go without saying that those below it have it even worse.

The second fact it ignores is that pricing for everything from doctor and hospital visits to drugs at the pharmacy is a rigged game. There is hardly any other word for it. Outrageous prices are established for those with no insurance and heavy discounts are provided to various insurance companies’ insureds. It isn’t a “free market” economy it is a set of nested vested interests. But even if the pricing were fair and uniform, no savings/tax credit plan will provide anywhere near enough money when needed to pay for medical expenses. And let’s look at this: the 2 person household with $64,000 in income will pay $4,367 in income taxes for 2019. They will still have to pay Social Security taxes and state and local taxes. Their total federal income tax liability is less than the “credit” they are supposed to get from putting aside money for medical expenses. In short, this so called solution is a “feel good/feel right” answer only for those making 6 figures or more and who can put $10,000 or more into such an account each year even with regulated prices.

Recent information from the industry says that in 2017 the average cost for family coverage under group plans (those large employers provide their employees) was about $20,000 a year. Even if the average family covered consists of three people that’s almost $7,000 a year per person ($10,500 with a median size of 1.9, as in the above example). Clearly outside the reach of a significant number of people, unless subsidized by someone like an employer or the government.

Those who have been fortunate enough to always be covered by employer provided benefits have no idea what the costs of health care are, or the costs of trying to find health insurance on their own. To these people it is easy to imagine that some minor belt tightening in the budget should be enough to take care of medical expenses.

If we are honest about our “free market” system we will have to conclude that in the case of health care it works more to prevent competition and improvement in any way that benefits the consumer of health services. It is a case of where the profit motive (with its inherently short term outlook) is at odds with fair and reasonable behavior.

When looking for the problem the insurance companies are good place to start because they are selling a “fictitious” product. It’s not an apple, or a car, or anything you can hold or examine, it isn’t even like a share of stock in a company which at least entitles you to a share’s worth of vote at a stockholder’s meeting, and some share of the profits. The health insurance companies’ product is “coverage”, a promise to pay for some medical expenses in exchange for your premiums. However, there are huge gray areas in that promise, which they get to interpret. Part of this is unavoidable – no contract could possibly list every possible outcome. Yet, buried within phrases like “reasonable and customary” and “standard medical practices” are the “loop holes” that allow the insurance companies to essentially tell you what the product you bought, “coverage”, actually means. It’s a little as if you bought an apple, but then seller got to decide what sort and what quality of apple you got. Or maybe you bought a car, but only got to determine that it was one of the following: luxury, SUV, full size, compact, or economy. The brand and the model as well as how often you got to use it, would all be at the discretion of the seller.

Now it is true that most of the income and profits for health insurance companies come from group plans and that their cost to the employer is essentially claims paid plus administrative expenses. Most of these administrative expenses are a fixed fee plus a percent of the claims paid. So some people would argue that they make more money when more claims are paid, and so they couldn’t possibly be a problem in restricting health care.

Let’s clear this up right now. It is obvious in the case of private insurance that they would prefer to sell their “coverage” to people who will never use it or at the most use it sparingly. In the case of group employer plans there is a similar dynamic going on. Their fees for administering the plan, which easily include plenty of profit, are a relatively small percentage of the total cost to the employer, because that total cost includes claims paid. Likewise, in competing for the group business their best selling point to the employer is that they will hold claims down to a ‘reasonable’ amount.

They talk in terms of fraud detection and prevention, and in terms of “reasonable and customary” costs and treatment periods, as if all doctors were out to bilk the insurance companies of money for unnecessary treatments. Thus the competition between the carriers has become one of who can hold down claims paid, and not about the relative fees for administering the plan – which is where all of the profits of the insurance company come from.

Attempting to remove coverage for pre-existing conditions is a very subtle piece of power play. Clearly it lowers claims paid for the insurance company and in the case of their group plans it is beneficial to the employer as well. But there is another more subtle benefit to the employer. Companies have always wanted the upper hand over their employees. Given that anyone who lives long enough is likely to have some sort of medical condition, the ability to refuse coverage for such a pre-existing condition leaves the employee essentially at the employer he had when it occurred. Now, no matter how uncompetitively they’re paid, no matter how unfairly they’re treated, they dare not seek new employment or their health condition will not be covered. Now they are at the mercy of their current employer, who knows that they can’t afford to quit but still can be let go at a time of the company’s choosing because of “employment at will”, still the law in most states.

Although not directly an issue in the universal healthcare debate, the cost of drugs does play into the insurance companies’ projection of costs. And that brings us to “big pharma”. No reasonable person wants to stifle the innovation that has brought us so many helpful drugs. However, the idea that businesses unfettered by regulation can do no wrong has allowed things to get more than a little out of hand. It is that profit motive which can deliver us good or ill depending on how it is allowed to be used. It should take no leap of imagination to see that for a drug company marketing treatments is much, much more profitable than cures. Treatments need to be continuously purchased, where a cure is a one only sale. Drug companies will tell us about the enormous research and testing costs just to bring a single drug to the market, and to a point that is true. Except that decades of “pro-business/anti-regulation” sentiment have allowed these companies to lower those regulatory costs quite a bit, often having the regulators take the company’s word for the results of safety tests. Then there is what can only be called an abuse of the patent laws that was intended to allow them to recoup their investments in a new drug.

Follow along closely here, because this could be a tiny bit technical. Let’s say there is a whole class of drugs that you can see developing, but all of them would have this one new process in common. So you keep that process secret or maybe you patent it, and then patent one of the drugs you want to market. Now you charge whatever you want for this new drug and just before its patent runs out you tweak the basic process and create a virtually identical drug but one which has its own patent period, and you start the process over again. There may be dozens of variations on the original drug, into which all of the research and testing money was poured. But now add to this a business friendly regulatory environment that allows the testing and safety trials from the original drug to be used for the newer variation and like magic, you’ve used the same research and development dollars as an excuse to recoup them many times through this family of drugs. The only ethics in which this is not repugnant is one that says profit, no matter how made, is good and justifies all. And there is still that matter of cures not being pursued as ardently as treatments.

But wait! There’s more! (As the TV ads always claim.) I’ll bet you didn’t know that a lot of basic research is performed by the government and non-profit organizations, hoping to shed light on diseases like cancer etc. in the hopes of finding a cure. This research is freely available to others, like the drug companies. So a portion of the research dollars they claim they need to recoup with higher drug prices came from donations and taxes already paid by others.

On a moral spectrum this puts the drug companies only slightly better than insurance companies, and only because they at least produce a real product.

The arguments against universal health coverage boil down to two inaccurate characterizations. The first attempts to exploit fears that health care won’t be available, either through rationing or though untimely or otherwise unavailability of services. Such fear mongering ignores the very real fact that such is happening right now, but no one seems to care since it is primarily happening to those below the middle of our socio-economic ladder. In other words, as long as you can buy yourself a place near the front of the line, all is good and right with the world. BTW these stories were built upon bad experiences from decades ago with other countries’ initial experiments (like Britain) – they in no way represent what is happening in most of the developed world, or what must necessarily happen with universal health care.

The second argument against complete coverage is that those who don’t take care of their health (or other responsibilities) will be paid for by “the rest of us” (“the good people”). Of course that again is both a myth and a contradiction. First there is no factual basis to believe that there is a significant segment of the population “deliberately” not taking care of themselves just so others can pay for it, and secondly, who actually decides what that is? Smoking is a health risk, and education and restrictions on where it can be done has reduced it significantly. But as far as risk goes, barbecued red meat isn’t a lot better, and the virtually nationwide addiction to salty, fatty snacks is at least as big a health risk as smoking by itself. But we don’t regulate that largely because there is no “second hand” risk as there is with smoking. But those who are so sure that they will be paying for those who are irresponsible with their health ignore this because it is a “personal choice”.

So we are back to the fear that someone, somewhere is “getting away with something”, while imagining that “we” (“the good people”) will never be in that situation. Hopefully the most reasonable among us can see that this is completely unrealistic and born of a naïve belief that only bad things happen to bad people.

I spent my education divided between the sciences and literature. From the literature side I discovered that this idea that “bad things only happen to bad people” has been around for several thousand years. It is demonstrably not true, by even the most casual examination, yet it has a strong hold on people’s beliefs, largely because it makes them feel safe. And if I’ve learned anything from association with people who feel this way, it’s that they like to feel safe (and often even “better than” others). Of course what they don’t say out loud, even to themselves, is that underneath all of that is a fear. Fear that their “goodness” isn’t enough to protect them, maybe even that their goodness has nothing to do with what happens and that they’ve been denying and limiting themselves for no good reason all this time; while those they think of as “bad” are getting all of the things they wanted without having to pay the same dues. Thus they really like the idea of making those “bad” people pay.

From the sciences side, I learned that to get to the truth, all of the facts had to be examined, and that “double blind” experiments were needed to help us overcome our natural emotional biases, so that we could see what really is, and not what we want to see, what we are “sure” the answer should be.

Whether it is healthcare or even basic welfare, I puzzle over this obsessive concern with the “undeserving” getting something. I certainly agree that there is an element (though I think it a small percentage) of the population that would happily let the rest of us take care of them for their whole lives. And I am happy to support measures to legitimately limit fraud and other misuses of these programs. At the same time, I can’t endorse the idea that it is better to help no one, than to risk helping someone who could and should be doing more for themselves. And yet this is exactly what most of the opposition to proposals for some form of universal healthcare boil down to.

I understand that for the majority of human beings’ existence nothing was guaranteed and life was hard and survival certainly went to the strongest, and often even to the most ruthless and vicious. But it doesn’t have to be that way any longer. We have progressed and we can do better for all of us. If you just want a practical, science based reason, how about this: in a world where travel and transport of goods has put the far flung reaches of humanity close to the most densely populated, can we really afford to just let people die of disease and other ill health? Isn’t there a huge risk to us all in that? When a disease can start in some remote place then spread all over the planet in weeks or months isn’t it a little foolish to believe that we don’t have to worry about folks being ill on the “other side of the tracks”?

Let’s return to the issue of the “free market” and the pricing of insurance coverage. In the lore of the free market, competition is supposed to keep prices from becoming outrageous, or at least as low as they can be given supply and demand. For example, if the demand for something like soy beans increases suddenly, the price will go up, but that higher price will lead to an increase in the supply of soy beans as more people plant them to cash in on the higher prices, and the price will fall again. Exceptions to this pretty picture occur when the supply cannot be increased easily or quickly. But coverage is a fictitious product, it can easily be increased, all that is required is to “print” more ID cards. So why doesn’t competition work in the health insurance business?

All insurance is based on the idea that we collect money (premiums) from a group of people and that only a portion of the group will need money back to pay for the risk we are covering. Let’s say the chances of your house being hit by a tornado this year is 1 out of 50,000. Now let’s suppose that repair of the damage if you are hit is going to cost $250,000. So if I have a group of 50,000 people, all with the same risk of being hit by a tornado, and all with a similar replacement need if they are hit, then if I collect $5 a year from each of these 50,000 people I’ll have enough to pay for the one person likely to need replacement. Of course it can get more complicated; we are only talking about insuring against one risk (a tornado), and if we get lucky and no one is hit how much should we hold over to next year in case two people get hit (since these are just averages and estimates), and of course how much do we keep for profit and for administering this plan.

When it comes to health insurance we come face to face with the idea that the risks may not be equal, and this is where the idea that somehow we should all be personally responsible gets involved. All other things being equal, older people are going to have more health problems as a rule than young adults. Children are going to have more health issues than young adults. Then there are the those with “unequal” risk – people who smoke, vape or do illegal drugs, clearly have higher risk of health issues. As we mentioned before, there are other risk factors we don’t seem to care about as much, even though they are just as risky. If we can get past the idea that everyone else is out there just waiting to cheat the system we might be able to examine this in a more rational manner.

So let’s focus first on the unavoidable and more or less inevitable facts of life risk. In this example no one is doing anything that would reasonably impact their health negatively. Over the course of a whole life, we all might expect to experience the same pattern of health expenses, high in childhood (typically NOT during our parent’s peak earning years), lower when young to middle-age adults without children, and then high again when we reach our senior years, where again we might more likely find ourselves with only retirement income. This pattern alone should suggest a rate that is supportable over the whole of a life is the most appropriate. But remember, we’re talking “free enterprise” and price competition, so here’s one of the ways that works out. I offer coverage at low rates hoping to attract those lucrative childless adults who pay their premiums and almost never have claims. To ensure I’m not picking up any potential claims expenses I either rate up or refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Next year when it is time to renew, the good rates only continue to the people who haven’t had any claims, and higher rates apply to others. In this way, I am continually cultivating a core group with low claims and therefore high profit to me, while collecting more from those whom I might have to pay out claims. Now what is especially pernicious about this, is how free enterprise competition doesn’t work. If I, as an honorable insurance carrier, wanted to use “over the whole life” rating my rate would be higher for the childless young adults and lower for the children and seniors. I won’t attract any of the high profit childless young adults and all of the high claims expense families with children and seniors. This won’t work because as a company/group we need to collect at least as much in premiums as we are going to pay out. Only regulation prohibiting certain rating practices can keep this on a level playing field where everyone has an opportunity; where the competition is really about service and efficiency reflected in rates, not just a way to put all the “bad risks” in a pool to pay more.

Since we are still talking about a scenario where no one is taking unreasonable risks to harm their health, and we’re appealing to a conservative point of view, perhaps we should point out that “traditionally” this is how humans have organized their societies; where the able bodied young adults carried extra burden for the children and the old – for the children because they are our future and for the old because their experience and knowledge are valuable and because of their past contributions.

Now to the issue of choices that may increase risk. Surely a certain amount of rating up for behaviors can be supported, against the overall whole life rating. But going too far in this direction merely becomes the sort of intrusive “micro-management” most of us, conservative or liberal, would like to avoid. Once we get past this “blame game” of presuming everyone else is out to get a free ride, the priorities can be put in proper perspective.

One of those perspectives was mentioned earlier in this article; there is a risk to us all for simply letting others die “in the streets” because of their neglect of health issues. Add to this the fact that waiting until these health issues are acute, i.e. serious enough to get you into an emergency room, is more expensive than preventative care, and we have a case for saying that we need a simple rating scheme that takes into account your whole life, and that we may need to subsidize the rate for those with incomes below a certain level. As for the well-off paying “more”; those with more, have more to lose when disease brings down most of the society and the people whose efforts make their lifestyle possible.

The next issue of choice masquerades as religious freedom. “Why should I have to pay for someone’s abortion when I believe it is wrong?” “Why should I have to pay for: birth control, blood transfusions, vaccinations etc.” There is a rather elegant answer to these questions.

The very same conservative forces who want to raise these questions and issues now have already done so, in another form. They were quite persuasive during the Viet Nam war that religious objections to war did not mean you could avoid paying your part of taxes that went to the Department of Defense. Legally the argument is something along the lines of the representative form of government already allowed your input to the decision. And your personal religious objection allows you to perform alternate service, as opposed to killing.

Now, once again, some people have confused religious freedom with the freedom to impose their personal moral views on others. Or perhaps they have confused intolerance of others who believe differently with a measure of their sincerity of belief. Since most of these groups like to identify themselves as Christian, I’d like to ask just how much of their judgmental positions come from the New Testament versus the Old? I’d like to spur them to give some serious thought to how to reconcile their view points with statements like: “love your enemies”, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

But I know that is pointless, those questions will not be raised by the followers of the religious right. They won’t come up because despite all the rhetoric, this isn’t really about religion or spirituality – it’s about following charismatic leaders, who tell their followers what to believe by playing to their fears and sugar coating their memories of the past, as if it were somehow near perfect.

The last element of choice really depends on the exact nature of the plan adopted, but the one choice that shouldn’t be allowed is to opt out completely. Here again a certain level of inconsistency in the opposition shows up. The main opposition to mandatory coverage comes from the same folks who are usually afraid that someone is “getting a free ride”. Yet, those without medical coverage (whether because they can’t afford it, or because they don’t think they’ll get sick) will not get treatment for conditions until it is serious. Then they will go to county hospitals where emergency treatment will be more costly to taxpayers in the long run. Or maybe their idea is to let them die without treatment at all? But then, that’s a good way to ensure the spread of epidemics. The reason everyone must participate is to spread the risk, and the cost over the largest possible group so as to keep the costs reasonable. It is also the best way to protect everyone.

While this represents a change from the “way things were”, it is in line with other aspects for the general good. Public schools are funded by taxes you pay whether or not you have children who will be in school, because we are in an age when education is not a luxury, and an ignorant citizenry is as much a threat to liberty as an unchecked tyrant.

While it is a different issue all its own, it seems only fair to mention that the opioid crisis is not entirely the fault of big pharma and super addictive drugs. The health insurance companies have certainly played their part. I personally know of a case where in order to avoid, or at least delay, the payment for a needed back surgery, the insurance company continued to request more review and information, even after their own prior approvals of the surgery. This went on for a year with the patient taking ever stronger doses of opioid pain medication. When the surgery was finally done, weaning off the opioids was extremely difficult.

The purpose of the above anecdote is to point out that the free enterprise method of dealing with this fictional product called “coverage” is more like a game of “hot potato” than it is anything resembling competition for the best quality and service.

Here are the basic features I think universal coverage should have:

· Everyone is covered,

· Individuals can pick their own doctors (because all doctors participate),

· Coverage does not contain exceptions for “pre-existing conditions” or excluded services to appease various religious groups,

· Premiums are set considering all ages, races and genders together,

o Some lifestyle choices (e.g. smoking) might be rated up in premium,

o Low and no income people would have little or no premium to pay out of their own pocket.

o How much of the overall premium is paid by individuals and how much out of general revenue of the government is an issue to be determined with other specifics.

Now the big question is who provides and administers this insurance; the government or the private insurers? To be honest I have concerns about both. Large government programs can become inefficient. I don’t believe that is inevitable, but it does happen. As a pragmatist, I also know that such a proposal would fire up opposition without even bothering to examine the pros and cons.

On the other hand, I have an even harder time with the profit motivated businesses having control over this. They still have the motivation to hold claims down through every available means, as they do now; letting delaying tactics masquerade as vigilance against fraud or abuse.

If all of the private insurance companies had to have the same rates for the same situations then larger insurers have an advantage, since they would have a mix of insureds more nearly representative of the national demographics that were the source of the rating. A small insurer could have a windfall or a crisis depending on whether or not their group of insured had more or less claims than the national average.

If everyone had to use the same rating methods for premiums, but were allowed to go above or below the “national standard”, then the illusion of competition would exist, but because the product is this fuzzy thing called “coverage” there is little to no way for the consumer to evaluate it. The biggest factor determining the insurance companies’ rates and profits would still be claims paid versus premiums collected and the easiest way a company can positively influence those numbers is by lowering claims paid. (In today’s world they also get to do it by denying coverage to those they believe will have high claims.)

Based on the above, perhaps a standard rate for all private insurers, with reimbursement from the government if claims paid exceed premiums collected. This would be covered by taxes on insurance company windfalls when premiums collected go too far above claims paid. This is only a starting point for ideas on how to make this work with private insurers. Unfortunately the debate never gets down to these issues; it stalls around the generalities and clichés the sides have locked into.

While attempting to get to some sort of plan, let’s please keep in mind that the profit motive is at best a two edged sword; it does not encourage only the best behaviors. While it can produce better quality goods and services at better prices, in some cases it can do just the opposite. Recall that greed was designated as one of the “seven deadly sins” and the phrase “love of money is the root of all evil” is not entirely wrong.

4 notes · View notes

lettersfromthepandemic · 4 years ago

Text

Letter One - Of Pandemic Times; May 25th 2020

Dear Future Generations,

Chances are you are searching through our Digital archive to learn about the Pandemic of 2020 for a history report. I’ll bet your text books paint a perfectly hind-sighted picture of what truly happened on earth when Covid 19 swept across it.

From where I sit now, things are not so clear. It’s been two months since we’ve entered lockdown and the best we know is that a vaccine will bring this to and end. Realistically, it will be years before the world is safe to visit human beings again and the reality is that for many of us, it will never be the same.

My first letter is a long one. I thought of this while I was dancing in the rain after a thunderstorm. You see, no one walks outside when it rains. I found my freedom in the dripping of water from the clouds. My neighbors think I am nuts. But I laugh it off. The warm summer rain forces everyone inside and I can walk the streets in peace, barefoot and wet without coming across a soul.

I live in America, in a large city. This pandemic has been terrifying. For all the reasons I loved living here before this started; they are now the reasons it is scary. I’ve lost everything I love about being here. I’ve never questioned my choices of city living. Without all the culture, education and entertainment options open. With my industry completely shut down and without work - there is no reason for me to be here. Take that all away and Covid times have got me thinking of buying a house in a small town in the middle of nowhere and starting over.

There is no escape from people. We are packed in too tightly. The sidewalks are too small for walks without bumping into someone. There is no way to control your neighbor and everyone deals with the fear and preparations of keeping safe differently. There is no space to breathe without someone walking through it. A large part of the population won’t wear masks.

You’ll learn as you read different perspectives, how different the experience is for each person living through this time in history.

That’s exactly why I am writing to you today. I want you to know what the journalists, governments and history books won’t tell you. What the social media feeds will fail to demonstrate. I want you to know how it feels to be here. Now, in this time. In hopes that this message in a bottle finds you in a better world.

In America, it’s a politically divisive time. While it’s worth mentioning that I am a feminist that believes in social justice and equality. I can tell you that the fall out from our politics has divided us sharply. The last big fight for equal rights is happening as we evolve and the disenfranchised voice is becoming louder. Still, it is not fast enough. In my lifetime I went from reading and watching mostly cis, white, heterosexual male stories to seeing America begin to more fully represent its peoples. There are more women in Congress now than there ever was. We have a shot at seeing a female president in my life time.

This is no where near the representation we’d like to see, but it's a start. This movement has unearthed the underbelly of racist, sexist, privileged people who are rising up in opposition. They require sharp education, myself included, at reconciling and acknowledging privilege to undo the hurt of our beginnings. These peoples think they are starting to be “oppressed,’ as they become the minority. But they use that word and don’t understand what it means. It’s a time of reckoning for our countries beginnings. Progress has been too slow for the mistakes we made directly keeping down slaves, indigenous peoples and immigrants that didn’t come from a white European country. Colonization and the effects thereof are everlasting. Even hundreds of years later.

That tension feeds our media. They, the media, stoke the fires into great sweeping rage and dissension for the price of advertising dollars. Social media has allowed one to curate information that suits a point of view. There is no longer debate. Academics are pitted against “common sense.” Pick a side and draw a line in the sand. Choose your battle ground.

This backdrop, is the stage to which this pandemic is played out in America. The division is not helpful when in crisis we need unity. Our Covid numbers continue to rise sharply. American capitalism fails when the lower class can’t or won’t work. So they are putting us back to work, knowing that we will be sacrificing lives.

This truth is sharply debated by many but I believe history will show it to be true. We know this virus will spread easily until we have a vaccine and yet we are sending people back to work with bandaids on gaping wounds. We are scared. We are fighting over why a person should wear a mask. We are uncertain of our futures and we are watching our structures crumble underneath us.

That said, it’s been a hundred years since the last pandemic swept the earth. Our advances have allowed us to work from home and digitally connect. Technology, I have no doubt saves many lives.

I wonder what will save your life in the next hundred years. Studying history, it seems we have a new virus or plague that rotates through the populations within that time. You’d think we would have been better prepared. It will come to light that our government knew this risk was imminent. Perhaps you are writing your report on that very thing. We knew. We did nothing. I wish I could report to you that we prepared all we could but it is not the truth. We chose to ignore that risk and carry on. Our experts have been warning us for years. I live in a time where we question our experts and don’t believe them. All that enlightenment and learning and still, our people fight science.

Granted, planning for every scenario of apocalyptic doom would be impossible. But I believe us to be smart intelligent creatures capable of evolving ourselves and therefore think the greater of us. Most of us were busy building our lives distracted. We elected leaders to prepare and protect society. They did not. While blame is not useful to move forward. I hope that from where you sit, society feels more responsibility for each other. At this time in humanity, our populations are booming. Our “media,” only reports the bad stuff but the truth is we were, up until this point, living in the most peaceful time in human history. You wouldn’t know it by reading one of our newspapers. We haven’t evolved past our fascination with the darker parts of life on this rock. Blood, discord, disaster and fear sell advertising and products.

Even for all our faults, we are making progress as a species. Its a lovely optimism to adopt. But alas, I am also a realist. Our dark sides are ever present at work too.

The pandemic of 2020 has heightened our inequalities. They existed before this, but today they are even more present. In America, we are calling our essential workers “heroes.” In reality, they are only called that because we are sacrificing them to the virus for the “good of society.” Our food producers, housing and healthcare professions are under a great deal of strain.

Our meat production plants are currently struggling to operate as many factories and plants that have been in operation since this began are now having large parts of the population become sick. In America, our poverty stricken populations are often the ones on the front lines serving others and at the highest risk.

I can tell you that I feel powerless to stop this machine but I want to. I’d like to find ways to fight this injustice and demand better for our people. Before all this, I was lobbying for universal healthcare in our country and free college education for everyone. This pandemic has only confirmed the need to work together and provide for one another. Though we fight over what that looks like. I know in our hearts, we want to do better.

I’ve only spoken to three humans in person from a distance, once in 78 days. Everything else is digital. Currently, I have enough budget to have all my essentials delivered. That privilege affords me other luxuries too. I can control who I see and who I don’t. This control is something that I do not take for granted. Though quarantine is hard, I’m not forced to interact with others at the moment. I’ve adapted my work to this new reality and am working at every angle to keep dollars coming in the door.

Even so. Emotionally, we are a mess. It’s a wild ride of feelings from one moment to the next. The quiet safety of our homes lulls us into a dull reality. We limit our news. We limit reading about the virus. It has forced us to live more in the moment and focus on the tasks in front of us rather than too far ahead. With so much uncertainty, that has helped with the stress.

I recite these things to myself to soothe my weary soul: We are smart. We are capable. We have survived this before. We can solve our own issues. We can do better. We will do better. I am smart. I am capable. I have survived hard times. I can solve my own issues. I can do better. I will do better. It is my daily prayer. It doesn’t always help.

I wonder what life is like for others as I stare out my window every day. I miss the outside and bird watch more than I ever have. Digital life is helpful for survival but often feels empty. As excited as I get for interaction, I often close the laptop after a meeting and feel sad. This reality has me questioning everything.

I hope from your position in the future, we figured this out. That my faith is humans has merit. For now, it all feels so uncertain. The numbers are still climbing. While we have people recovering there are many that are suffering terribly.

I don’t understand why our country isn’t in mourning. Perhaps the numbers are too big to fathom. I cry almost every day reading the death tolls. The news hurts. I mourn each addition without knowing them but only for the few seconds I can allow before dusting myself off and getting back to my own work. I worry about the stacking of issues we’ve ignored as climate change heats us up. In a pandemic the natural disasters make life even harder and we are seeing that play out already. Floods, tornados, fires, storms and drought all adding up to challenge our lives. We too chose to ignore them.

I vote for reform on climate change at every chance I get. I’d like you to know that many of us are trying. We also know it’s a problem and that if we don’t invest in the future of our planet, that it will become your problem too. This issue hasn’t hit its match point. Too many people are still worried about day to day living. That keeps us from being able to plan ahead. A theme of our demise.

It’s the privileged who have the time and resources to work on prevention. These are the hearts and minds we need to work on changing. They are the hardest to change. Once a person has more than they need, I think the fear of loosing it forces them to ignore others. At least, that is how I summarize the issue.

Myself, I came from humble roots and spent many of my formative years in poverty. I understand what it means to have nothing. I also have the peace of knowing that even in my poverty, I had happiness. Perhaps this has kept me sane during the pandemic. Knowing I can survive.

As the summer heats us up in America, I worry what lies ahead. We are itching for a release and I fear Covid will spread faster come fall. I write to you in hope. That you are reading this from a place that is safe. Where we survived and we did it with less loss than the previous pandemic.

What follows will be a collection of letters. Stories. Tales from the times. It is all the more important to make sure that the voice of our past is human. In my time, the text books didn’t teach that. We send you this time capsule. Please learn what we didn’t. I trust you will.

#lettersfromthepandemic #pandemic2020 #2020 #2020timecapsule #dearfuturegenerations

1 note · View note

relationshipsandpolitics · 5 years ago

Text

The Medicare for All Debate isn’t about healthcare; it’s about taxes.

So here’s basically what’s happened with Medicare for All, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Warren and Sanders both support Medicare for All or at least some government-run healthcare system that provides health care for every American regardless of their income, job status or health. Pretty much every industrialized country in the world has some form of universal coverage, whether it be totally funded and run by the government, or through a public/private mixture. But the result is everybody pays taxes to get free or cheap health coverage.

Republicans and many Democrats (including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and professional anonymous person John Delaney) have attacked Warren and Sanders because they believe enacting such a policy will cause taxes to go up and lead to worse health outcomes. Democrats argue that our current health care system is lacking, but universal coverage will somehow be worse, or if not worse, cost too much to be palatable. Because budget deficits are worse than 45,000 people dying every year due to lack of health insurance, apparently.

Sanders has countered this criticism by saying that, yes, middle class taxes will go up. Taxes on almost everyone will go up to fund Medicare four all. But, and this is crucial, overall costs to the poor and middle class will decrease because they would be paying nothing in insurance premiums, copays and deductibles. The Republican and Democratic opposition, along with the media, ignore this fact, but it remains to be seen if the average voters will understand this. As such, Sanders is forced to be on the defensive.

Warren, meanwhile, has avoided answering whether taxes would go up under her plan. Biden and others are after her for this and will likely bring it up in the debate tonight. Recently, Warren released a financing plan to fund Medicare for All without raising taxes. Many people have been skeptical of her plan, questioning whether she could raise the money she says her plan can raise, and whether people would avoid paying more for universal coverage. More recently, Warren has shifted her plan to now call first for a public option in year one before gradually moving to full Medicare for All by year four.

That’s where we stand on the issue. I won’t get into the validity of either plan; smarter people than me have already gone over the numbers.

I want to briefly discuss how this issue is framed. The problem with the Medicare for All debate is it relies on an assumption about the average voter. That assumption is that the absolute worst thing in the world for a voter is to see their taxes go up. The political experts believe that even if an asteroid was heading to earth and we needed to tax everybody 1% of their income to destroy it, the public would throw a middle finger in the air and get a bigger television to watch the end of the world. And I’m not sure how wrong that feeling is.

I think Biden is still winning in the polls, and Buttigieg is surging, precisely because they won’t support a plan that might raise taxes. Even though we all agree health car in this country sucks and is too expensive and covers too little, we simply cannot allow our taxes to increase to solve the issue. We shed tears over the father of three who got cancer and died because his HMO wouldn’t cover treatment, and then vote against legislation to ensure that never happens to anyone else.

Voters oppose Warren and Sanders’ plans not because they are skeptical of the merits of them, but because they don’t think they are possible to enact. And they are possibly to enact because voters will not support seeing their taxes increase, no matter the benefit. There is no other explanation. Government-run health care and health insurance is a proven concept. It works better than what we have. These are facts. It’s not a debate. Americans should support the idea in droves because it’s morally reprehensible for a country as rich as ours to allow its citizens to die because they can’t afford to see a doctor.

Americans are selfish. We refuse to pay more so that others can have a better life. We’ll shoot our own nose off to spite our face. The debate over Medicare for All is not a debate over health insurance or health care. It’s a debate about taxes and American greed.

Look, if you have issues with their specific plans, fine. It’s worth a healthy debate over whether the Sanders or Warren plan is the best way to achieve universal coverage. But if you don’t support Sanders or Warren as candidates because they want Medicare for All, you need to be honest with yourself why. You need to stand up and admit that you simply don’t want to pay more in taxes, even if it means 45,000 of your fellow citizens get to live.

#bernie sanders #elizabeth warren #medicare for all #taxes

5 notes · View notes

neetpgcounselling · 2 years ago

Text

PG Medical Training in Germany

This article will provide more information on the benefits of pursuing postgraduate courses in Germany.

Regarding finding medical education abroad, Germany is one country that comes to mind. German medical colleges are known for their high standards and quality education. Choosing a career option after MBBS in India will help a person learn the correct way to study medicine which can be helpful after returning home.

Medical schools in India are among some of the best in the world. Yet, they don’t offer much variety in specialisation or career options. Postgraduate courses available in India are limited as well. That’s not true for Germans medical schools, though, as they offer doctoral studies for almost every specialisation and field of interest possible, which makes them an ideal choice for students who want to pursue

After finishing their MBBS course in India, PG Medical Training in Germany is a popular option for many students.

Many students are opting for P.G. Medical Training in Germany to gain an advanced qualification and explore working abroad opportunities. We list reasons why you should consider studying PG-level medical training and living abroad.

Medical schools in Germany provide postgraduate medical training programs for international students.

International Medical Graduates from all over the world come here to pursue their postgraduate medical courses like M.D., MS, M.D., D.M.D., D.O., D.P.H., D.P.M. in many reputed and top-rated German universities and institutes of higher education for a wide range of specialties and fields of study under the supervision of the best faculty with excellent infrastructure at an affordable cost and competitive fees structure in Germany.

The fee structure is very reasonable in these top Medical Universities, so they attract many students abroad to avail themselves of the opportunity and become a part of it by applying to get enrolled by paying a small fee just like the registration fee they conduct written tests or entrance exams or interviews which are required.

P.G. Medical Training in Germany is one of the most popular destinations for Indians to pursue postgraduate medical education. Qualified MBBS graduates from Indian universities can go for postgraduate medical education in Germany.

These days, many new opportunities await Indian doctors who wish to pursue their postgraduate training abroad. As more and more MBBS students opt for an international career, the trend of going abroad to study has increased manifold.

Germany is one of the countries where you can pursue post-graduation in the medical field. The country has excellent healthcare facilities and offers ample opportunities to explore other career options.

International students who opt for P.G. Medical training in Germany after MBBS in India have many career opportunities, including research, teaching, entrepreneurship, and clinical positions. These students will also be able to work in hospitals and other research centers.

However, suppose you are looking for the best career options abroad after MBBS. In that case, Germany might not be your best option as the country does not offer an ideal job scenario for post-graduation medical graduates.

Post Graduate Doctoral Medical Training in Germany

The German higher education system is of a very high standard and is one of the best in Europe. After completing the MBBS degree (Masters of Medicine), continuing your medical education through postgraduate studies is possible.

These are offered by several universities, hospitals, and other institutions; there are many programs to choose from.

#International jobs for doctors #overseas doctor jobs #pg after mbbs in germany #international jobs for doctors #career options after mmbs in india

0 notes

beinglibertarian · 6 years ago

Text

An Overview of the 2018 Brazilian Elections

Igor V. Teixeira

An overview of Brazilian Elections

As most of you know, Brazilian Elections are upon us.

By “you,” I mean the incredibly divided population of Brazil which currently engages in a fight that greatly resembles the recent US election.

This is not the only parallel this article will attempt to point out between both elections. There are also plenty of differences between both situations and a close background analysis is needed in order to understand how things came to be the way they are.

One of the main differences is in the system itself.

TV stations are forced to show an ad for each candidate, for a set amount of time, and the bigger the coalition the more time they have, which tends to result in parties creating huge alliances.

There is also a party fund, provided by the state, with tax money, which every party receives, numbering in the millions of dollars to campaign. You read it correctly – millions of dollars!

To give you an idea, the highest sum a party receives is 58 million dollars, with the total amounting to almost 430 million dollars; this not only favors corruption, but also strengthen parties already in power since they receive the biggest share. It’s almost as if the system was rigged from the start.

Another difference is that we have 13 official candidates to presidency.

The last one is that we have a 2-phase election system, with the 2 most voted candidates (after a direct vote) facing each other on another date to settle who becomes the next president.

I have no idea why Brazil is not put forward more often as an example of how bad socialism or statist politics are.

Brazil has one of the largest most expensive and ineffective universal healthcare systems in the world and has a very strict gun control in place, banning most citizens from carrying even handguns on them or having one home. It has strict minimum wage laws controlled by the federal government, monopoly over oil extraction, and labor laws partially imported directly from Fascist Italy.

It offers “free” public universities, which are the biggest in the country and it has all sorts of affirmative action policies in place, having social, gender and racial quotas for spots not only in those universities but also in the public sector. The public sector is where Brazil concentrates the best-paid jobs of the entire country and since public agents of all sorts cannot be fired under almost any circumstance, have high salaries, and almost no responsibility over consequences of their jobs and actions.

All of that works for the worst, with no public service being effective and corruption cases popping so frequently that it made the population numb to its dire consequences.

In 2015, and Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s successor from the Worker’s Party, became the target of a corruption scandal that would culminate with her impeachment the following year.

Operation Car Wash (“Lava Jato” as it was called by the ever so creative Brazilian Federal Police) was already following and catching big names in pretty much every Brazilian party; tracing connections between politicians, especially those who were candidates during the 2014 election and their campaign lobbyists, who injected tons of money in order to get advantages and huge contract deals from the State.

It was then that Petrobras, Brazil’s State owned oil company, became the target of the operation, and Rousseff was part of the board of directors of that company during Lula’s administration. It was also revealed that SBM Offshore had paid a hundreds of millions of dollars during Rousseff’s first presidential run, whilst she chaired the oil company. All of that peaked with Brazil’s second impeachment.

When Vice-President Temer (MDB) assumed the presidency for the following years, Brazil’s economic situation was already dreadful, and that only increased, which is amazing because you would think a ship could only sink so far, but you would be wrong.

2018 has come, and here are some of the main names worth noting, since Brazil has 13 running for the presidency, currently.

The Social-Liberal Party

Jair Bolsonaro (Social-Liberal Party), is an ex-military captain, and has been a federal congressman for 4 consecutive terms, being the most voted congressman of Rio de Janeiro during the 2014 election. Here is where comparisons with Trump begin.

Bolsonaro is not Trump, that’s for sure. He is not an entrepreneur, or even a civilian with no political background. He gained notoriety for being conservative and making homophobic remarks on public television. That appealed to a younger audience, and to the traditional Brazilian family, which he swears to defend against communism.

Every appearance he’s made has caused outrage and has been met with intense resistance, putting him on top of the polls for both vote intention and rejection rates at once. A “Women’s March” against Bolsonaro was organized two weeks before election and an #Elenão (“not him”) hashtag was trending on Brazilian social networks over the last month.

Nonetheless, his overall “No BS” attitude has awarded him plenty of comparisons with the current American president, and his campaign specifically addresses him as a breath of fresh air into an old and corrupted institution.

While no concrete evidence of corruption has been put forward to incriminate him, he is definitely far from a fresh change. That has not stopped his run from being impressive however. While he has very little support outside of his own party (and a small alliance), compared to his counterparts, his main points as a candidate are defending the end of gun control and a resistance to what he calls a “communist wave” that contaminates life in Brazil. Bolsonaro defends free market, and his Economic advisor is Paulo Guedes, an economist who graduated from the University of Chicago.

Despite that, the candidate has a bad stance on individual liberties. He is against marijuana legalization and publicly defended a known military torturer active under the dictatorship period, during Rousseff’s impeachment voting session, for the entire country to see.

For that and other reasons, he has constantly been called a fascist, compared to Hitler, was spat on by another congressman and was even stabbed last month by a man who opposed his views during an election rally in Minas Gerais.

Despite all of this, he has gained plenty of momentum and is the most likely to win the election’s 1st phase. He currently has 32% of vote intention.

The Workers Party

Bolsonaro’s biggest threat on his way to the election is Fernando Haddad (Worker’s Party), who gained notoriety as the Minister of Education during Lula’s and part of Rousseff’s administrations.

He was the elected mayor of São Paulo until 2017, when he lost his reelection to João Dória on the 1st phase of the run.

Haddad was a big name of MEC, the Ministry of Education and Culture, which controls every level of education in Brazil and the contents of what is taught there, even inside private institutions.

Haddad’s run has been riddled with controversy, since the Worker’s Party’s original plan was to have Lula as the candidate, but he is currently unable to do so, due to his arrest for numerous corruption charges.

Nonetheless, Lula has been present and cited even in the party’s jingle, and the effect of that can be seen in the election numbers, which show Haddad in close second to Bolsonaro.

Funnily enough, the biggest support and ally in this run is MDB, the party who orchestrated Rousseff’s impeachment so that Temer could take her place as president.

Haddad supports taxes on the rich, gun control, more presence of the state in the private life, bigger government and an overall structure that results in increasing spending and bureaucracy by the state. He currently holds 23% of vote intention.

Did I mention that he plans to rewrite the Constitution? Cause he does.

The Worker’s Democratic Party

Close third comes Ciro Gomes (Worker’s Democratic Party), who just recently lost the second spot on all surveys to Haddad. He is no newcomer to politics, since the Gomes family has been in power in the poorest region of Brazil for almost 100 years. He was Mayor of Fortaleza, Governor of Ceará, Minister of Finance under Itamar Franco’s term, a federal congressman, and the Minister of National Integration during Lula’s administration.

Ciro’s most recent presidential run has been one where he’s positioned himself as an eloquent option for both the left and the right. He has promised to take millions of people out of debt with a system where some people would pay for lack of payment for loans other people took, a kind of a trust circle, where every 10 people afford mistakes made by others, in a Keynesian nightmare.

Ciro has somehow attracted tons of youngsters to his side, he was very close to going into the 2nd phase of the election against Bolsonaro, according to surveys. That chance has been stained by the candidate’s overall macho posture, constantly filmed fighting protesters during his rallies and even assaulting journalists on two occasions, demanding that one of them be arrested for asking him something he surely did not like.

He has gained millions of dollars for his campaigns during the last 30 years, and most of the companies that financed him became extremely wealthy throughout his mandates.

He believes that the State should control most of the economy and went as far as to say that Uber would be prohibited in the country once he was president.

He once stated that would receive justice officers with lead if they came to arrest any of his party members, and that even though socialism’s implementation killed millions of people, he was willing to take that risk. Last survey showed Ciro Gomes grabbing 10% of vote intention.

The Others

Other candidates have struggled to grab more than 5 % of votes according to recent surveys, with Geraldo Alckmin being the top of those.

The physician is a member of the biggest opposition party in Brasil, PSDB, a Social-Democratic party (funnily enough considered right-wing for Brazilian standards), and not far behind him is Marina Silva (Rede), Former Senator and Minister of the Environment under Lula’s term as president.

Lower in the ranks are Henrique Meirelles (Former Central Bank chairman under Lula’s government), Guilherme Boulos (Socialist and Liberty Party), whose main proposition is to support Venezuela’s government and free Lula from prison, and Alvaro Dias (Social Christian Party), a former Senator.

All of them can be connected to Lula one way or another.

I wouldn’t be a proper Libertarian if I didn’t mention the first time runner João Almoêdo, from Novo (New in Portuguese). His run has been noticeable, as it was his party’s first time ever on the ballot. He managed to grab quite the attention considering that, hitting close to 6% of intentions, and making a name despite not having any TV time to showcase his propositions as a president candidate. Using the internet as his main platform, he supports free market and a voucher system slowly replacing the current universal health and education systems; giving the population more freedom to decide where to spend the money they pay in taxes, and to drastically reduce government costs with staff and bureaucracy, allowing the private sector to compete for that instead.

Even though he will most likely not be featured in the second phase of the election, where the top 2 most voted candidates will face each other, Almoêdo has shown a country that long ago forgot about freedom, if it ever knew about it at all, how responsibility can be more gratifying and rewarding than having a Big Brother to take care of you.

His party is the only one which refused to receive State Party Funding. Not only that, but plenty of candidates from his party are using his notoriety to try to grab seats in every level of the election, from Congress all the way to Governors, and hopefully they will do a good job once they get those spots for themselves.

That is not to say that he is a libertarian all the way. He refuses to talk about marijuana legalization, abortion and other sensitive topics, and has made a few conservative remarks, despite those believes not appearing in his policies so far.

Brazilians elections are ones to be looked upon closely by the rest of the world, because they are another case of how right-wing candidates have gained momentum in response to years of left-wing governments.

This doesn’t mean this is good, from the Libertarian point of view, since conservatives tend to interfere in the private life of citizens and love protectionism; something which might be construed as “true Capitalism” and, once it fails, leave a spot on free market when really there was none to begin with.

That has happened before; especially in South America, and it would be a shame for it to be repeated so soon in history.

Bolsonaro appeared close to losing in every projection during the 2nd phase of the election, but I personally would not count him out yet.

During Trump’s election, people were chastised for voting Republican, and in Brazil it is no different. Voting for Bolsonaro automatically puts you in the group of “deplorables,” and being called fascist, homophobic, and all types of “isms” is the basic MO in that situation which makes people resentful and silent. That turns into something else once you are alone to vote though, and people tend to express themselves more freely then.

All that resentment and disillusion might bite the left in the ass big time in this election, and as much as I love watching them lose, I cannot say that it looks any brighter for democracy in Brazil.

* Igor V. Teixeira is a member of the Being Libertarian social media team.

The post An Overview of the 2018 Brazilian Elections appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2ysurX3 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #libertarian #beinglibertarian #being libertarian #freedom #free market

4 notes · View notes

dxmedstudent · 7 years ago

Note

I’m not familiar with the UK, but I know that understaffing is a very general problem with the healthcare field. What do you think drives this besides the overwhelming stress causing people to leave voluntarily? Is it just lack of interest in the health profession itself? The competition of schools/ programs for the number of people wanting to get into medicine? The gov’t? Where do you see the problem stemming from and what can be done to help? Thank you so much.

That’s an interesting question, though I suspect that given the complexity of the answer, it remains without an easy fix. You’re right to suggest stress plays a huge part. Understaffing, dissatisfaction with lifestyle, pay, progression and training can all play a part. The rise of litigation culture is another key factor; we’re receiving a lot more complaints than we used to, as patients and relatives expect more, sometimes to unrealistic or unfeasible degrees. I know your question suggests glossing over this bit, but I really think this is the crux of the matter; the working conditions in healthcare are probably, in a lot of systems, where the problem arises. Getting into medicine is competitive in I imagine every country. Because it’s thought of as a good job; secure, well-respected. Relatively well-paid. Lately in the past few years, doctors and nurses have been in the press more than usual, and usually for negative reasons. Recent contract disputes, protests, strikes etc have played a role, as have all sorts of high profile cases which are poorly understood by the public at large. Although still voted the most trusted professions, that position comes at a price; people expect a lot of us, and when you’re put on a pedestal it’s very easy to be knocked off it. If any doctor or nurse is thought poorly of, that can have a knock on effect on the whole profession, even if the reasons aren’t entirely justified. It extends I don’t think there’s a lack of interest in healthcare, though I suspect that interest could be higher. Now that going to university is much more expensive. In the UK; it’s gone up from being free about 10 years before I went to university. Tuition was £1000 per year the year before I started university. In my time at university it was £3,000 a year, now it’s over £9,000 a year. That change happened in the space of about ten or so years. The government didn’t even wait a couple of years to see if my generation, the first with fees of £3K, could even afford to pay that back. Students are going to have to think more carefully about what they choose to study, and how to shape their career. By getting rid of the nursing bursary, I do think that some people were put off studying nursing; applicant numbers are objectively down. I don’t know if increasing the number of places available to study nursing would even help, becase I’m not sure that all the current places are being filled. Nursing and medicine also suffer from the reality that though there will almost always be work of some sort, it may not be where you want to go. Jobs are sprinkled throughout the UK, through cities and towns right down to small villages. Whilst working in and around London remains competitive, relatively few people want to uproot themselves to a village on the other side of the UK; therefore the most likely people who’d want to work there might be locals, or foreign-trained staff who are starting afresh with few friends and family anyway and are happy to work there. A lot of people who are from the UK already have roots; they might not want to uproot themselves to a village on the other end of the UK, and that’s OK. But it leaves a situation where some places will always have less people applying because they are remote. The foundation training system combats this by forcing us as junior doctors to rank EVERY possible part of the UK; do badly and you could get sent to the outer Hebrides or Northern Ireland or wherever your last choice was. You can choose to refuse that job, but then you’ll have to wait months, maybe a year, to reapply. But you can’t do that throughout training; after foundation training we have the choice of where we apply and if we continue at all. In reality, a lot of systems are probably propped up by foreign labour; the fact that there will always be lots of people willing to move to Western countries to fill the gap. This is usually advantageous for the receiving country; they take none of the cost of training highly skilled staff and receive a ready-made workforce. However, it’s a huge burden on the training country; their system will have to pay to train more people, only to find that probably more of them will flee abroad. Unfortunately, in the long run this isn’t an ethical situatioin; we shouldn’t be causing a ‘brain drain’ on other nations in order to staff our healthcare service. We, as the NHS rely a LOT on foreign labour; on people trained abroad. On doctors from Pakistan, nurses from the Philippines and Ireland, and on both doctors and nurses (and let’s be honest, domestic staff, catering staff etc) coming from the EU in recent years. This wasn’t usually a problem, but now the government have started making it harder for even people offered good jobs (because those posts were lying empty) even as doctors and nurses, to be allowed visas to work here. Many recent stories suggest that government policies are trying to make it fundamentaly harder for anyone to come here, or to remain if they are already here. I have friends whose choices were complicated by whether the government would let them stay to work as doctors, and know people who had to leave because their visas would not be extended, despite having secured a job and paying taxes. The government may want to show its more conservative voters smaller immigration numbers, but at what cost if we’re making it impossible for the health service to hire the people it needs? As the government make it harder and harder for overseas doctors and nurses to be employed, staffing will drop further. And there’s evidence to suggest that more of our staff who came from the EU are leaving. Create a culture of hostility towards foreign workers, and they will feel unwelcome and decide to go somewhere else. When it comes to med schools, I used to get the impression that the number of graduates are enough; there used to be a good chance of getting an FY1 post when you applied, even despite a number of foreign applicants. I think that’s still probably true. If we don’t have enough FY1s, then yes, increasing the number of places to study medicine would be helpful. However, for further up the ladder it gets… more complex. Medicine is heirarchal and based on years of experience. So if you are short of SHOs or registars, having lots of FY1s won’t help you in the near future (though it might help you in the long term). And if you increase the number of trainees in general, you’ll have to make sure you increase the number of FY1, FY2 etc posts all the way up. You can’t just ‘find’ ready made GPs or consultants, or even registrars; either you get them from abroad, or else you have to train them ALL the way up. Otherwise, you’d be dooming a bunch of people to pay £9K for 5-6 years through med school only to tell them that there aren’t enough places for them to start working as a doctor, I feel that would be unfair. Granted, they might well find work elsewhere, but it’d waste both our money as students and as a society to do that, given that studies are subsidised by the government. So you need a balance.In all honesty, it’s always going to be difficult if you’ve got a leaky pipeline; the system may be set up to deal with a certain amount of staff lost but if the pressure is too high, you’re still probably going to lose too many people. And the people we are losing, they aren’t comparable to the shiny new graduates med schools pop out; it’ll take years for them to be comparable in experience to the SHOs and registrars we are losing. The doctors in the middle; worn down by the system and realising life is just too short to be miserable. Many of these people really wanted to be doctors, and many would probably have remained if conditions were different. Whilst some of us realise that we just weren’t cut out to be in healthcare, or that perhaps what we want and need has changed, I feel that many struggle with leaving precisely because some part of them loves medicine, even if it is making them ill. Occasionally, some smartass politician suggests tying in doctors to work in the NHS for a set number of years, but I don’t think this’d be either helpful or desirable. Medicine, due to the pressures and situations faced, is a field with a higher than normal rate of mental illness and suicide. It’s a risky field with significant effects on our health as a group. I’d go so far as to suggest than anyone who forces those who feel they need to leave, to stay against their will would soon have blood on their hands. The people I know who left medicine did so for their mental health, and if they were not allowed to leave, I’d be very concerned that they might risk a more… final way of leaving. I don’t believe anyone should be bound to a job they can’t stand or which makes them ill. I also think that it would do the field more harm than good; rather than showing medicine to be a desirable job, it would suggest that it is so bad that you have to force everyone to stay. With prospects like that, who would want to join? When you could be a vet, be a dentist, be any number of things where you aren’t forced to do it against your will. The key is to improve conditions so that people want to stay, and can stay without destroying their health and mental wellbeing. So that people feel valued, and respected, and feel that their issues with the health service have been taken on board. That those who are running the service understand the issues we raise and the problems we face That, for me, is the only real longterm solution. but I fear that it might be too expensive, and that few would care enough to try.

#askdx #ask dx #healthcare #nhs #medicine

5 notes · View notes