What happens if our healthcare system navigates coronavirus far better than Europe's universal healthcare systems? How does that potentially change the whole equation of how we view the value of us paying so much more for healthcare here? The same applies in reverse if our system completely implodes relative to Europe.
I don’t think it says a whole lot about the system under regular condition which is what’s going to matter as it’s the vast majority of the time, what this will show us is a little about the systems under extreme distress. Ideally you want your country to do well under both scenarios. That being said, there is more factors then just the healthcare system at play here, a lot is on the governments decision making, population density, age of population etc. Right now 3 countries stand out from the death rate perspective, Germany, Norway and Australia. 3 different, but all very good universal healthcare systems. All 3 clearly very developed developed countries. Preventative measures seem to be better amongst Asian countries, Singapore, HongKong, South Korea, Japan and China have controlled the spread much better then any western countries *so far*, the situation is continuously changing though.
Well currently the country that handled to pandemic the best is South Korea and they have a national healthcare system that serves 97% of the public. United States is considered one of the worst to handle the pandemic currently only ahead of countries like Iran.
Most of eastern Asian countries have the COVID -19 under control because they actually believe in social distancing, that is the key. If you are going to the beach and party at home or clubs, you are not going to get this crisis under control.
Well it's not just social distancing. It's access to tests and making sure there are sufficient amount of beds and care that is covered that can ease the burden of a pandemic.
Right - but they did it with prevention, which is available to everyone in theory. That's a matter of execution. I'm talking about things like if our hospitals are better able to care for patients without getting overwhelmed and such. This is all theoretical - because the problems Italy, for example, is facing could very well spread here and it certainly doesn't look like our health care system will fare any better than anyone else's. But the underlying question is ... what *if* our private-sector health care system proves more capable of responding to an existential crisis like this over the next several months? What if NHS in the UK collapses while ours remains reasonably robust? What does that do to the "why are we paying so much more than other countries?" question that has basically been the core of all health care discussions for the last 30 years? What if this moment is the hidden benefit of all that extra spending?
What the hell do I have to gain from some "con" , I really don't understand that .... What's the damn point ? Can't I just be looking at thing's from a different perspective ? Remember , I'm not a Democrat - I'm not on your team. I'm not a Republican - I'm not on their team. I'm the guy that's stuck between the two with nowhere to go and maybe I just have some perspective from both and even if I don't agree with Bernie supporters , I can try to look at things from their perspective. When I don't agree with everything the Dems say / do / want , all the sudden I'm a Trump supporter - Like its some kinda insult. That's kinda stupid cause we have to have the intellectual honesty to point out when one side or the other is playing - not just pick a side and defend them to the bitter end - right or wrong. That's just ignorant.
It’s very difficult to practice social distancing in places like Hong Kong and Singapore. There is too much density including concentrations of services. While people in those cities heeded the call to not publicly congregate its impossible to get away from people when you’re living in dense hi-rise housing and just to get the mail you’ll probably come in relatively close contact with at least 10 people. My guess is that there already was a tradition of wearing masks when sick and and a high dedication to sanitary conditions. I do think the health care system had something to do with it too and having experienced both Hong Kong and Singapore health care they are very efficient and much more responsive than US healthcare. Regarding whether the state systems are the key to fighting this disease I think it is too early to say. Even though Singapore and Hong Kong were originally based on the NHS there are some big differences. I know very little about Italy’s system but I don’t think Italy’s failure is because of their health system.
On the tuition free college that other countries have - Is that free for everyone or free to those who meet the criteria ? Where does that leave everyone who doesn't meet the criteria ? Aren't most of those countries heavily merit based on college acceptance ? (not a bad thing IMO) Are the people in those countries getting degree's at the same rate per capita - higher / lower than in the US ? Or is it only the worthy student's getting those freebies? What about those that don't meet the threshold ? No college for you ? Not trying to be combative here , just asking an honest question that I think matters in regard to the free college discussion. I would have no argument against a true merit based system where worthy students were tuition free ..... but that is much more exclusive than we are currently where literally anyone with the want to can get that education - tho they have to pay for it.
Yes merit based systems. Not all colleges will be as stringent as others of course, some will have very high acceptance rates, others will not. I don’t think anybody has argued that a college degree is some sort of human right, but rather that money should not be a barrier to any person capable.
The one thing you are leaving out of this , in terms of Covid19 is the length of time its viable outside the human body and how that can affect its spread from host to host. This is what makes this thing hard to deal with. You can literally do everything right in terms of social distancing and touch a surface an infected person touched 2-3 days later , touch your nose , eyes or mouth and become infected as its viable on plastics and stainless steel for 48-72 hours. An infected person can sneeze and its viable in aerosol's for three hours .... https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces The only way to stop the spread is to isolate ourselves from other people .... cause its exponential in its spread , you come into contact with a new person , you come into contact with everyone and everything they have come into contact with.
I guess that's what we need to define. If the standards were high enough , I could get on board. But I'm not down with "free for all".
No you need something(s) to predict success. And you could perhaps earn that by going to community college or junior college paying yourself and having a high GPA. Otherwise you should have some standard for high school grades and test scores.
Different for each college. Overall, High school graduates with language proficiency. Some will only require GED's, some will require 2.0's, some will require 4.0's. This is standard for pretty much all countries. You don't accept students who did not pass high school or who are incapable of obtaining a GED, or students who can't prove they speak the language that the classes are being taught in. Outside of that, everybody else is fair game to go to whatever university they can get accepted in? If you are saying you would want to artificially restrict the standards to higher levels to exclude students would be otherwise capable of passing the courses just for the sake of exclusivity and saving money, then I disagree.
I'd have to read the specificities of other systems. But I suppose I generally agree. What standards would you have to uphold? At least a 3.0 or something? Perhaps something different for engineering students?
Like I said earlier, whatever is required for the degree/career and college. Some degrees, like engineering degrees, usually require 3.0s, other degrees are possible with 2.5 GPA's, 2.0 is usually the min requirement for most universities but getting accepted becomes more difficult, community college type schools will take you with a GED.
Well I don't think I agree with that. If you are getting a complete free ride to a school with taxpayer money at a school like UT I personally would want higher standards. Getting a GPA under 3.0 is ridiculously easy. Colleges and Universities give out diplomas and that's not good enough in my eyes.
