American Politics Discussion Thread

[Ichabod]

That's the most succinct assessment I've yet read .

Darrell

Or even more soccinctly:

If Darrell wants to do a prostate exam, he doesn't want anyone lifting a finger about it (only the doctor, of course).

[Mr. Cairo]

You are wrong about GPs in the UK. Whilst there are private GPs who can be paid be individuals either via insurance or out of pocket, these are few and far between. The majority of GPs are employed by private partnerships. The private partnerships are not part of the NHS, and the employees are not paid by the agenda for change pay deal or have access to NHS pensions. The private practices are commissioned by NHS England and Improvement to provide specific care and treatment, on a per head basis with additional funding for complex patients, so they are funded by taxes but they are public not nationalised.

OK, fair enough on GPs.

we do not work for HMG. We are public sector workers

But this I don't get. How is a "public sector worker" not working for "the government"? Would you prefer to say you work for the state instead? Whatever, I'll just use the term you prefer and say "public sector workers".

In any case, I still don't know what you're trying to argue here? Public healthcare in the UK is provided via the NHS, which is overseen by a government department and funded by taxes and free at point of use. The responsibility for the running of an NHS hospital ultimately falls to the government. NHS Hospitals are publicly owned, NHS staff are public sector workers, and when you go an NHS hospital you are treated and don't have to pay anything for that treatment. Even when the NHS contracts out to private organisations/individuals (like GPs), it is still the NHS that is paying for the services, even if the NHS isn't providing it.

In Canada, public healthcare is also funded through taxation and free at point of use, but is mostly provided by private entities. Hospitals are mostly not state-owned, staff are mostly not public sector workers, and when I go to the hospital I am treated, and then an insurance claim is made by that hospital to The Manitoba Health Services Insurance Plan, which I am enrolled in as a resident of Manitoba. I don't pay anything out of pocket for that treatment, but the province does pay the provider for that treatment.

To put it simply, both the government of Canada and the government of the UK pay for healthcare for it's citizens. The UK does this by baying for a system to exist in the country to provide healthcare. Canada does this by paying private entities for the specific services it provides to it's citizens, with what essentially amount of province-wide insurance schemes. Both systems are public, in that they are available to the general public and paid for by the public through taxes, but only the UK's system is nationalised (even if not all it's employees are "public employees").

That's why I say that "public healthcare" in the UK is "nationalised", while in Canada it is just "public".

Edit: I have now been reading up on the changes made to the NHS in England in 2012 have made it less "nationalised" in terms of the running of much of the NHS, it's system is still quite different from the single-payer insurance model we have in Canada.

[darrelljs]

What’s worse is just how certain Trump is that he couldn’t have lost. He’s 100% positive.  He really believes it.  This is not an attempt to steal an election.  This is, in his mind, an attempt to take back an election that was stolen .

Christ I've spammed this thread .  It took forever to find this post.  Basically Nikki Haley confirmed this in a Politico interview:

"I understand the president. I understand that genuinely, to his core, he believes he was wronged," Haley told the magazine.

Asked if she thought it was dangerous that Trump was spreading misinformation about the election, Haley replied, "He believes it" and compared it to: "That would be like you saying that grass is blue and you genuinely believing it. Is it irresponsible that you're colorblind and you truly believe that?"

Darrell

[Krill]

we do not work for HMG. We are public sector workers

But this I don't get. How is a "public sector worker" not working for "the government"? Would you prefer to say you work for the state instead? Whatever, I'll just use the term you prefer and say "public sector workers".

The same way that a government can pay, for example, a private enterprise to do anything, like private security in Iraq, or pay Astra Zeneca to provide vaccines: it doesn't make Astra Seneca employees government employees. A government employee has a contract of employment with the government. I don't. I am not a government employee.

In any case, I still don't know what you're trying to argue here?

I'm not arguing anything, just providing information for others understanding.

Public healthcare in the UK is provided via the NHS, which is overseen by a government department and funded by taxes and free at point of use.

Not technically true. Public healthcare can and is provided by private organizations. This is what I was saying earlier. The government gives money to Clinical Commissioning Groups and they commission services. This where the bit about nationalization doesn't fit but public does. NHS provider trusts are just statutory bodies that are none profit entities. They are not owned by the government. CCGs pay them to do a job, then they fuck up and cut corners, then we call them on it and put them straight.

The responsibility for the running of an NHS hospital ultimately falls to the government.

To be fair, most things fall to government responsibility: that is what it is there for, the ultimate decision maker, in power by the will of the people in a democratic country. This should not be a surprise.

NHS Hospitals are publicly owned

Eh, not quite. The buildings themselves are often private finance initiatives and owned by private organizations and rented by NHS Trusts. The upkeep, maintenance of these hospitals is the responsibility of the private organization.

A couple of years ago a big company, Carillion went bump and they own more than a few hospitals. We are not quite sure what would have happened there, but it's an interesting insight into problems public bodies can face. The auditors of Carillon have also been hauled over the coals if you want to have a look at this.

NHS staff are public sector workers, and when you go an NHS hospital you are treated and don't have to pay anything for that treatment. Even when the NHS contracts out to private organisations/individuals (like GPs), it is still the NHS that is paying for the services, even if the NHS isn't providing it.

Pretty much, but it is worth pointing out that lots of nurses work as agency workers, have their own company and they are sole employer and director of the company. Doctors also do locum shifts, same principle, and consultants often have their own private practice. So you can go to an NHS hospital which is privately owned, see an agency nurse employed ona short term contract, and then have an appointment with a locum consultant. Public, but not nationalized.

In Canada, public healthcare is also funded through taxation and free at point of use, but is mostly provided by private entities. Hospitals are mostly not state-owned, staff are mostly not public sector workers, and when I go to the hospital I am treated, and then an insurance claim is made by that hospital to The Manitoba Health Services Insurance Plan, which I am enrolled in as a resident of Manitoba. I don't pay anything out of pocket for that treatment, but the province does pay the provider for that treatment.

Not really any different tbh. NHS hospitals still get reimbursed from CCGs in a similar manner. The overall process looks the same to me. I would ask: where does the majority of hospitals money come from, and how does that compare to the wage burden from the staff?

To put it simply, both the government of Canada and the government of the UK pay for healthcare for it's citizens. The UK does this by paying for a system to exist in the country to provide healthcare. Canada does this by paying private entities for the specific services it provides to it's citizens, with what essentially amount of province-wide insurance schemes. Both systems are public, in that they are available to the general public and paid for by the public through taxes, but only the UK's system is nationalised (even if not all it's employees are "public employees").

That's why I say that "public healthcare" in the UK is "nationalised", while in Canada it is just "public".

Edit: I have now been reading up on the changes made to the NHS in England in 2012 have made it less "nationalised" in terms of the running of much of the NHS, it's system is still quite different from the single-payer insurance model we have in Canada.

I have no idea how Canadian healthcare systems run. Not really a concern of mine: I considered emigrating a decade ago but that option was never really there for me. I would be more interested in reading about how services are commissioned, but atm I have a bunch of government white papers I need to digest. 8m just writing this as an education exercise.

[Mr. Cairo]

we do not work for HMG. We are public sector workers

But this I don't get. How is a "public sector worker" not working for "the government"? Would you prefer to say you work for the state instead? Whatever, I'll just use the term you prefer and say "public sector workers".

The same way that a government can pay, for example, a private enterprise to do anything, like private security in Iraq, or pay Astra Zeneca to provide vaccines: it doesn't make Astra Seneca employees government employees. A government employee has a contract of employment with the government. I don't. I am not a government employee.

In any case, I still don't know what you're trying to argue here?

I'm not arguing anything, just providing information for others understanding.

Public healthcare in the UK is provided via the NHS, which is overseen by a government department and funded by taxes and free at point of use.

Not technically true. Public healthcare can and is provided by private organizations. This is what I was saying earlier. The government gives money to Clinical Commissioning Groups and they commission services. This where the bit about nationalization doesn't fit but public does. NHS provider trusts are just statutory bodies that are none profit entities. They are not owned by the government. CCGs pay them to do a job, then they fuck up and cut corners, then we call them on it and put them straight.

The responsibility for the running of an NHS hospital ultimately falls to the government.

To be fair, most things fall to government responsibility: that is what it is there for, the ultimate decision maker, in power by the will of the people in a democratic country. This should not be a surprise.

NHS Hospitals are publicly owned

Eh, not quite. The buildings themselves are often private finance initiatives and owned by private organizations and rented by NHS Trusts. The upkeep, maintenance of these hospitals is the responsibility of the private organization.

A couple of years ago a big company, Carillion went bump and they own more than a few hospitals. We are not quite sure what would have happened there, but it's an interesting insight into problems public bodies can face. The auditors of Carillon have also been hauled over the coals if you want to have a look at this.

NHS staff are public sector workers, and when you go an NHS hospital you are treated and don't have to pay anything for that treatment. Even when the NHS contracts out to private organisations/individuals (like GPs), it is still the NHS that is paying for the services, even if the NHS isn't providing it.

Pretty much, but it is worth pointing out that lots of nurses work as agency workers, have their own company and they are sole employer and director of the company. Doctors also do locum shifts, same principle, and consultants often have their own private practice. So you can go to an NHS hospital which is privately owned, see an agency nurse employed ona short term contract, and then have an appointment with a locum consultant. Public, but not nationalized.

In Canada, public healthcare is also funded through taxation and free at point of use, but is mostly provided by private entities. Hospitals are mostly not state-owned, staff are mostly not public sector workers, and when I go to the hospital I am treated, and then an insurance claim is made by that hospital to The Manitoba Health Services Insurance Plan, which I am enrolled in as a resident of Manitoba. I don't pay anything out of pocket for that treatment, but the province does pay the provider for that treatment.

Not really any different tbh. NHS hospitals still get reimbursed from CCGs in a similar manner. The overall process looks the same to me. I would ask: where does the majority of hospitals money come from, and how does that compare to the wage burden from the staff?

To put it simply, both the government of Canada and the government of the UK pay for healthcare for it's citizens. The UK does this by paying for a system to exist in the country to provide healthcare. Canada does this by paying private entities for the specific services it provides to it's citizens, with what essentially amount of province-wide insurance schemes. Both systems are public, in that they are available to the general public and paid for by the public through taxes, but only the UK's system is nationalised (even if not all it's employees are "public employees").

That's why I say that "public healthcare" in the UK is "nationalised", while in Canada it is just "public".

Edit: I have now been reading up on the changes made to the NHS in England in 2012 have made it less "nationalised" in terms of the running of much of the NHS, it's system is still quite different from the single-payer insurance model we have in Canada.

I have no idea how Canadian healthcare systems run. Not really a concern of mine: I considered emigrating a decade ago but that option was never really there for me. I would be more interested in reading about how services are commissioned, but atm I have a bunch of government white papers I need to digest. 8m just writing this as an education exercise.

That's all fair enough, the last time I used the NHS I was a child over 20 years ago, and I know a lot has changed since then. I can also understand how from your perspective the NHS doesn't look all that "nationalised" (I would argue that working for a private company that's contracted by a public one doesn't make you a public sector worker, but that's irrelevant). However, from most outside perspectives and certainly when taking a macro view and comparing different countries systems, the NHS is a lot more nationalised than many (most?) others.

[Cyneheard]

What’s worse is just how certain Trump is that he couldn’t have lost. He’s 100% positive.  He really believes it.  This is not an attempt to steal an election.  This is, in his mind, an attempt to take back an election that was stolen .

Christ I've spammed this thread .  It took forever to find this post.  Basically Nikki Haley confirmed this in a Politico interview:

"I understand the president. I understand that genuinely, to his core, he believes he was wronged," Haley told the magazine.

Asked if she thought it was dangerous that Trump was spreading misinformation about the election, Haley replied, "He believes it" and compared it to: "That would be like you saying that grass is blue and you genuinely believing it. Is it irresponsible that you're colorblind and you truly believe that?"

Darrell

Just further evidence that it's absolutely irresponsible to give this man any power whatsoever if we accept Haley's premise that Trump believes his own nonsense.

And, no, him not believing his nonsense does not work better.

[Thoth]

Emperor Cheeto managed to get acquitted: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-impe...lI7jx7oWPI

[Mjmd]

I mean we all knew it was going to happen. I'm just honestly confused what the Republican endgame is. By not convicting him and stopping him from running you are 100% guaranteeing he runs again in 2024. If his base is as powerful as you fear it is, he will be the candidate again. That means of course that the normal fear tactics Republicans use are useless as Trump is going to drive voting for Democrats..... You can write the attack ads now "Donald Trump sat and watched the riot and did nothing".

[superdeath]

I just want a 3rd party to be viable... is that too much to ask?

[Commodore]

I just want a 3rd party to be viable... is that too much to ask?

In a word? Yes. 

Best performance of a third-party candidate in the last century was the respectable result for Ross Perot in 1992. Ross Perot 2.0 here just proved it was easier to capture a current party than build a new one. Discouraging that from happening again was a big reason for the Cadaver Synod this week.