Ill in England? Your Location Can Determine If You Live or Die

In the US dental is considered a seperate insurance for most. So there's a separation for whatever reason meaning using it to disprove the demographic theory for "regular" healthcare might be valid

And dentistry is why people in England are scared of changing the model for NHS healthcare, because we see that dentistry is fucking awful for huge numbers of people.

The problem with the NHS is not the model, it's the funding.

https://savegme.org/

That’s why I questioned the idea that demographic issues are going to prevent the West from solving this problem. A little bit of political will and some signatures is all it takes.

Some time ago I read 2 different books on healthcare systems, both very detailed, the authors having compared in-depth the many styles of healthcare systems in existence in addition to having relocated for some time to some of the locations to get a personal look. And despite all the complexities involved in such comparisons, both came to the same very basic conclusion: Healthcare systems are a reflection of the mindset of the country's citizens; Americans won't get universal healthcare until the average American believes that other Americans deserve it.

These examples heavily downplay the public health, safety, and behavior progress the West has made. In the US, litter, graffiti[1], and smoking were all greatly reduced over the past half century. The male smoking rate in America is half of the male smoking rate in Japan.

I think the idea that the Japanese form of capitalism is more benevolent than the rest is also a bit rosy-eyed. Statistics on hours worked aren’t great for Japan. It’s arguably not a good thing that low wage workers are prioritizing work. You say that there’s an aversion to screwing people over but in the same sentence you’re saying that low wage workers are being exploited and convinced to work unbilled hours.

[1] Jusr do an image search for “New York Subway 80s”

It's pretty blatant dishonesty to say that healthcare hasn't been defunded, and then only focus on NHS provision of healthcare while ignoring public health, social care, nursing care, etc.

So no overweight people. Hmm. I'm not sure what the cut-off for overweight is...

I guess, if we're going to police lifestyles from a health point of view, we should exclude smokers, vapers and drinkers from the list as well? Apparently no amount if alcohol is good for you...so....?

While we're at it what about red meat consumption? Thats not great in excess.

Oh, and motor-bikes. There's no good reason for those, and they're like accident magnets.

I guess what I'm saying is that once you start down the path of determining non-qualifying behaviors, it's hard to stop. Surely all of us would be disqualified sooner or later.

"And overweight people should not have publicly founded insurance. We should respect their wish to die!"

Overweight people don't want to die. Obviously you know this but were trying to make some point, one I don't understand.

I suggested selective care based on cost and quality of life. That's the logical way to do it even if you think it's immoral. You believe non-citizens shouldn't be helped? Why? "Because they don't contribute with taxes". There are many people who are citizens who don't contribute. Illegal aliens also provide a workforce for vital food production and other jobs that help the economy (regardless of if you think it's wrong).

You also had a issue with fat people because it's their fault. What about people who speed and crash? Skiers who fall, horse riders, any optional activity that carries risk falls into the same category.

---

"For example no lockdowns, that sacrificed young people over old"

Young people were thankfully much more resilient to Covid but was this wasn't known initially when the strictest lockdowns were put in place. Health officials were being cautious. What were to happen if there were no lockdowns? Certainly more deaths of old people but also adults in their 40s, 50s, 60s to a lesser extent.

As for the mental toll on young children- the total lockdowns didn't last long, you could go out and meet in small groups even during the initial phase. Many people didn't even care or follow the advice after the first few weeks. However, kids were remote learning for much longer but if that causes development issues what about home schooling? What about kids in remote areas?

What is the specific situation and time frame that cause your child's development issues?

I'm admitting there was a not insignificant mental toll on children, as this study shows[1]. You need to weigh this against the alternative of less or even not having any lockdowns and lack of information when these decisions were made. This means that using data you have now about the affect on children and how Covid 19 affected different age groups as a criticism, which I don't think is valid

Is that true though? A less densely populated area would have a lower baseline number of hospital beds, which I'd expect would make it more sensitive to unexpected volatility in demand. Major hospitals often have empty wards which are kept available as contingencies for unexpected events such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters – I've seen one in person before, all these beds and medical equipment with the lights turned off gives me goosebumps for some reason – less major hospitals are less likely to have such facilities – but obviously they give hospital management greater leeway (at least in theory) to manage unexpected bursts in demand. And of course, less densely populated areas are likely to have fewer major hospitals and a greater number of minor ones. Similarly, larger hospitals have larger staffs, so greater likelihood they can ask extra staff to come in to meet unexpected demand bursts.

So, in the abstract, I would not be surprised if less densely populated areas of England had worse bed availability than more densely populated areas. And indeed, the least dense area of England, the South West, scored the worst in hospital bed availability in their analysis–as I would have expected.

I think that is a flaw in the methodology of this article, they display no evidence of having considered factors like that, or having attempted to control for them.

This means you can run with fewer free beds than in a low population area.

For example, if you have 3.8 beds/1000 people, that's 4 beds in a town of 1000 people.

A single additional person is 25% of the beds in the small town. A car crash? You won't be able to fit them in.

In a city of 50,000 people, that's 190 beds, and random events fit in the slack much more easily.

Also, since the baseline is larger, it's easier to scale. The minimum addition in the small town is a whole bed, or a 25% increase in costs.

In the city, it's also 1 bed, but that's ~0.5%.

There are still big sources of error in these numbers. It's not obvious, but spending on IT systems and hospitals (capital investment) isn't included in these numbers, yet these have sucked up a lot of NHS spending over time especially in the form of large failed IT projects, and capital expenditure on hospital buildings has often been done "off the books" in the UK using PFI schemes.

Unfortunately the ideological basis of the NHS means that many people feel a nearly moral obligation to argue its failings are always about money, especially Brits who work in the healthcare world themselves. It's a risk free strategy. To criticize the way the NHS is actually structured or operates would come dangerously close to wrongthink.