The Trump Presidency...

Interesting from a geographical perspective..

Looking at the "without subsidy" list Nebraska and Wyoming seem much higher than the rest. Wyoming is twice as expensive as Texas for example.

Is there any specific reason for this variation that you know of? All I can think of is lack of competition in the sparsely populated states. There is not much point in dozens of companies vying for business in a population of less than 600K.

@Steamboat - any ideas?

There is no spin or subtext in that question either, merely geographical curiosity.
lots of polite Americans shooting each other?
 
Well, I do know a fair bit about California, having lived here for almost a quarter of a century.

I would hardly say that we created our own misfortunes, what with having a bigger economy than the UK on about two thirds of the population.

There are indeed some ill thought out State laws, in particular from the 1978 Proposition 13 that imposed a requirement for a two thirds majority for any tax increase, and the semi-freezing of property taxes.

Property taxes are typically much higher in the US than the roughly equivalent Council Tax in the UK. State and local spending has to be mostly paid for by local taxes, a mix of income tax (on top of the federal income tax), sales taxes (which can vary from town to town) and property taxes.

When we moved here, our initial property tax was based on a percentage of the home value as it then was. With inflation, the real world home value goes up but the "assessment" that it's taxed on can only increase at a maximum of 2% per year. What this does is give long time residents an effective subsidy and make it much harder for newcomers.

About seven years after we moved in, another Brit family moved in a few doors down. Because prices had gone up in the meantime, their property taxes were set at a higher rate. Their finances had to deal with an extra $5000 a year in property tax payments compared to us, whereas our neighbors who had been here longer are paying $2000 a year less than we are.

The Brit family sold up last year and moved back in fair part due to long term finances in which the $5000 a year made some difference in what they could plan for. Their sale meant another reset on the tax assessment and the new family will now be paying a whole lot more on top of what our old neighbors paid.

Maybe I should be grateful that we're now effectively being subsidized by the more recent home buyers but the setup is grossly unfair and explains some of the difficulties people might have in getting by.
Thank God for prop 13 otherwise this state government would tax us out of existence...they literally dont have a tax they dont like/try to pass. We didnt create our own misfortune? I beg to differ and if i remember correctly you are in the SF bay area... You have the effects of poor leadership on most street corners.
 
Thank God for prop 13 otherwise this state government would tax us out of existence...they literally dont have a tax they dont like/try to pass. We didnt create our own misfortune? I beg to differ and if i remember correctly you are in the SF bay area... You have the effects of poor leadership on most street corners.
doesn't look good

 

A very interesting article about the current state of stimulus negotiations that have stalled out here. I am inclined to think that both parties are in the wrong on this current Sh*t show. The Dems want to much pie to cover a very broad wish list and the GOP is trying to cheap out to the max.

1.6 to 1.9 trillion should be the target range that makes neither side happy but keeps the country afloat.
 
doesn't look good

Hence why California is going to pay a steep price for being so generous with the budget. Cuts should be made in the pork that is spent. Starting with all the goodies for illegals.
 
doesn't look good

We are still pumping money into the bullet train, that actually wont be high speed, between two towns in the middle of nowhere though.

And just last week the local politicians were pledging to pay for poor illegal immigrants healthcare.
 
America!

Its not the disease that kills you, its the Doctors bill.

$2,000 a month for a healthcare plan!

I'll stick with the NHS thanks
I pay less than half of that for a wife ( with pre existing conditions) and three kids.
 
Interesting from a geographical perspective..

Looking at the "without subsidy" list Nebraska and Wyoming seem much higher than the rest. Wyoming is twice as expensive as Texas for example.

Is there any specific reason for this variation that you know of? All I can think of is lack of competition in the sparsely populated states. There is not much point in dozens of companies vying for business in a population of less than 600K.

@Steamboat - any ideas?

There is no spin or subtext in that question either, merely geographical curiosity.
TBH mate I really don't know why prices differ from State to State, I do know they have their own rules when it comes to coverage.
 
America!

Its not the disease that kills you, its the Doctors bill.

$2,000 a month for a healthcare plan!

I'll stick with the NHS thanks
I don't know where you got your figures from, but for family coverage, (self, wife, 3 kids), it's $464/month for my family. If we lived in UK, the NI contributions for the wife and I, and the eldest child would be getting on for double that.

Another aspect of the differences is that we can choose where to have treatment. Some facilities are better or cheaper than others, some worse or more expensive. Some have better outcomes than others. That's not the same for the NHS. If you live in say Leeds, you go to Leeds General or whatever it's called. You can't go to a different organization.

I've made this point before, but it bears repetition. I have experience of both the US and the UK system, and I would take the US system any day. The cost and coverage model has room for improvement, but the care that I have received has been superior in terms of timeliness, flexibility and convenience.

A big difference is that they say "when do you want to come in?", rather than just receive an appointment letter in the mail.

Doc thinks you should have an X-ray on that swollen hand. Pop down the hall to Imaging. No need to go to A&E. I suppose some NHS primary care practices have imaging, but none of the ones I used did.
 
lots of polite Americans shooting each other?
Lot of Brits shooting each other as well, check your country's news occasionally.
 
I don't know where you got your figures from, but for family coverage, (self, wife, 3 kids), it's $464/month for my family. If we lived in UK, the NI contributions for the wife and I, and the eldest child would be getting on for double that.

Another aspect of the differences is that we can choose where to have treatment. Some facilities are better or cheaper than others, some worse or more expensive. Some have better outcomes than others. That's not the same for the NHS. If you live in say Leeds, you go to Leeds General or whatever it's called. You can't go to a different organization.

I've made this point before, but it bears repetition. I have experience of both the US and the UK system, and I would take the US system any day. The cost and coverage model has room for improvement, but the care that I have received has been superior in terms of timeliness, flexibility and convenience.

A big difference is that they say "when do you want to come in?", rather than just receive an appointment letter in the mail.

Doc thinks you should have an X-ray on that swollen hand. Pop down the hall to Imaging. No need to go to A&E. I suppose some NHS primary care practices have imaging, but none of the ones I used did.
the NHS Is nowhere near as bad as Americans fondly believe.
i’ve had the pleasure of private assorted in other countries, and the NHS, I’ve always found the NHS first class. X Rays on demand at the walk in centre, I can get an e consult with my Dr in hours. Heart attack, specialist paramedics at the door in literally 6 minutes, stabilised And in theatre in an hour for surgery.
And never have to worry about the co pay or final bill, or exemptions, or exceptions.

as they say, if you think the NHS Is expensive, try the ‘more efficient’ Free Market
 
I pay less than half of that for a wife ( with pre existing conditions) and three kids.
Just got off the phone with my oldest kid, he pays $460 for him and his missus and kid.
 
I don't know where you got your figures from, but for family coverage, (self, wife, 3 kids), it's $464/month for my family. If we lived in UK, the NI contributions for the wife and I, and the eldest child would be getting on for double that.

Another aspect of the differences is that we can choose where to have treatment. Some facilities are better or cheaper than others, some worse or more expensive. Some have better outcomes than others. That's not the same for the NHS. If you live in say Leeds, you go to Leeds General or whatever it's called. You can't go to a different organization.

I've made this point before, but it bears repetition. I have experience of both the US and the UK system, and I would take the US system any day. The cost and coverage model has room for improvement, but the care that I have received has been superior in terms of timeliness, flexibility and convenience.

A big difference is that they say "when do you want to come in?", rather than just receive an appointment letter in the mail.

Doc thinks you should have an X-ray on that swollen hand. Pop down the hall to Imaging. No need to go to A&E. I suppose some NHS primary care practices have imaging, but none of the ones I used did.
This in spades. My wife lived in the UK shortly and described the health system in the UK as 'Rustic'.
 
Last edited:
the NHS Is nowhere near as bad as Americans fondly believe.
i’ve had the pleasure of private assorted in other countries, and the NHS, I’ve always found the NHS first class. X Rays on demand at the walk in centre, I can get an e consult with my Dr in hours. Heart attack, specialist paramedics at the door in literally 6 minutes, stabilised And in theatre in an hour for surgery.
And never have to worry about the co pay or final bill, or exemptions, or exceptions.

as they say, if you think the NHS Is expensive, try the ‘more efficient’ Free Market
Nobody (at least not me) is saying the NHS is bad. What we are saying is the the US system is superior, based on experiences with both.
 
Nobody (at least not me) is saying the NHS is bad. What we are saying is the the US system is superior, based on experiences with both.
I would accept that as a general point. American health care is clearly world class.

The question I would ask is why does the US perform very badly on nearly all measures of health outcome amongst the leading industrial nations.

That is a difficult circle to square although I can think of one obvious reason.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Oddly enough Mrs Helm Va born rates the NHS far higher, depends on where in both places I guess
 

Latest Threads

Top