The Liberal Gun Club Forum

I am a pretty mild lefty really but very left on universal health care.
At the moment I am reading the book 'In Place of Fear' by Aneurin Bevan who was the British Minister of Health who actually got a universal heath care system into place.
I am only on page 38 but already I know this is one of the most important books I will ever read

It's 1952 but the parallels with the health care debate in the US are 100% and all the exact same issues are discussed. How to overcome the insurance companies and private doctors and all their objections and their tactics. It's all the same arguments and issues as right now in the US

I am particularly interested in how the gun lobby in the US can be persuaded to yield an inch in those areas that thinking people with the 'caring' gene (liberals), can use Bevan's experience to make progress on their own agenda.

At the age of 63 and as a dual US/UK Citizen, I have finally realised that appealing to people's consciences and good-will and 'niceness' or even patriotism will get me and you nowhere. It has to be sold as something that benefits the individual voter or it won't be sold.

I got my first UK Firearms Certificate in 1964 and I was a club officer there. I have a whole heap of guns here in the US and the ease of access is great.

However, I think the background checks as they are done now are inadequate. The ‘Hell No’ people will not give an inch and don’t care how many innocents die – typical right wingers and the opposite of patriots

Ok now in the UK, guns were expensive and there was precious little room to shoot bigger guns and so it wasn’t a majority sport. It was easy to appeal to the majority when imposing strict (Too strict) gun controls. The majority thought of the safety of themselves and their families and their property and decided it would benefit them to have these controls - and hard beans on the minority who were shooters

Here in the US it is the exact reverse with the majority being gun people or influenced by gun people.

As Liberals and people of conscience and fairness and regard for all our fellow citizens, we need to find a way to steer the conversation so that change appeals to the majority of the population. One way is to just sit still and watch the death toll mount until it becomes insuferable and impinges on the lives of the majority – in their fears at least . But we are not like that.

I post this as a starter as I have not thought this through yet and I am looking for inspiration from you guys. However I know that appeals to people’s better nature will fall on deaf ears. Appeals to save the suffering innocents will be ignored. We have to find a way to make it in the interest of individual ‘independents’ if we are going to make progress and so I am asking whether anyone can think of a way to progress that.

I posed this on a gun forum where the ‘Hell No’ people hang out and it wasn’t long before I was told to put my 9mm in my mouth and blow my head off. The moderators seemed ok with that post so I repeat that it is no good appealing to the better nature of people who don’t have any.

Alan

allserene wrote:I am a pretty mild lefty really but very left on universal health care.
At the moment I am reading the book 'In Place of Fear' by Aneurin Bevan who was the British Minister of Health who actually got a universal heath care system into place.
I am only on page 38 but already I know this is one of the most important books I will ever read

I sure hope that we do a better job with UHC than the UK has.

Stories like this one are coming out of the UK with startling regularity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... t-surgery1
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/ne ... ticle.html

Apparently it is very hard to find a Dentist that is part of the NHS. I actually know a few German Dentists (Apparently Germany is overflowing with them now) that have been imported to the UK to work for the NHS, as it is hard to find British Citizens that want to take up the job.

I did a bit of checking a while back, and it seems that British citizens go on more "Health Vacations" (Surgery in other countries), than just about any other first world country (About 4 times higher per capita than the U.S.)

I also hate waiting, and I understand wait times for simple surgeries can be 3-6 months.

allserene wrote:However, I think the background checks as they are done now are inadequate. The ‘Hell No’ people will not give an inch and don’t care how many innocents die – typical right wingers and the opposite of patriots

In what ways is the current system of background checks lacking? What are some ways you think we can improve the current system of background checks?

As to innocents deaths, as much as I hate to say it, as with anything you have to figure out what cost/benifit ratio is acceptable. Cars are a simple example. Even with all the safety improvements death by vehicle costs are horribly high, but the benifit of cars is of such that our economy would collapse without them.

The below quote appears to be based off of statistics from AAA

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

This brings us to Cost/Benifits of firearms

Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995

The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use

Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005)

Based off the above information with additional statistics on the following factors, we can say "For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use."

allserene wrote:Ok now in the UK, guns were expensive and there was precious little room to shoot bigger guns and so it wasn’t a majority sport. It was easy to appeal to the majority when imposing strict (Too strict) gun controls. The majority thought of the safety of themselves and their families and their property and decided it would benefit them to have these controls - and hard beans on the minority who were shooters

Here in the US it is the exact reverse with the majority being gun people or influenced by gun people.

I was always was under the impression that in the UK, firearms are for the elite (Nobles), while in the U.S.A. firearms are for the comman man.

allserene wrote:As Liberals and people of conscience and fairness and regard for all our fellow citizens, we need to find a way to steer the conversation so that change appeals to the majority of the population. One way is to just sit still and watch the death toll mount until it becomes insuferable and impinges on the lives of the majority – in their fears at least . But we are not like that.

For change to appeal to me, the change must be for a reason and the benifit of the change must outway the cost.

allserene wrote:I post this as a starter as I have not thought this through yet and I am looking for inspiration from you guys. However I know that appeals to people’s better nature will fall on deaf ears. Appeals to save the suffering innocents will be ignored. We have to find a way to make it in the interest of individual ‘independents’ if we are going to make progress and so I am asking whether anyone can think of a way to progress that.

I think what first must be done is that you must set goals (IE lower firearms related deaths of children by 50% per year). Then you should look for means to accomplish that goal. You must then determine which means people will find most acceptable, and craft it in such a way to get the highest approval.


Charlie

Plenty to chew on there.

All I can say of the NHS is that much of the stuff you hear over here is simply not true.

For example I hear here that over age 50 in the UK they give you an aspirin and tell you to go home. My mother had a bad fall at age 75 and fractured her skull and needed a year before she could walk and talk.
She got great care and of course it doesn't cost a penny. She lived independently for a while and then in her 80's she went into residential care. Run directly by the City and a beautiful place with sun rooms and gardens. She paid not a penny.
In her 90's he had the usual falls breaking the hip - fixed up beautifully - free
At 94 she had a hysterectomy as she had a huge benign growth as big as a loaf of bread (US supermarket economy size) - again a great job and did not cost a penny.
She eventually died at 95 in good care and dignity
There is no insurance entitlement or insurance fund - everything is free. Of course nothing is free but in the UK they pay tax directly to the government and in the US they pay 3 times as much in insurance.

I agree that a hernia which can wait might have a wait of 6 weeks or more so the speed of operations does not compare to the US (If you have insurance who will pay)

I have superb health care in the US so far - but it is on the back of my wife's job.
Her brother works in health insurance in Milwaukee and his job is to try and disallow claims. He is good at it and his targets go bankrupt or are refused further treatment.

So basically it's the usual story - if you are financially well off in the US then it's the place to be. If you buy your own insurance and get poor and sick - you are far better off in the UK.
The NHS is patchy and inner city treatment is not good but 'nice' areas are usually great. Dentistry is mostly private and they work like US dentists inventing a lot of stuff you don't need


Kings and Lords are part of the 1776 stuff and my club members were telephone company linesmen and leather saddle makers, TV aerial riggers, police, bricklayers etc so no you don’t have to be rich – but it was 140 miles coast to coast and with 60 some million people it’s a bit crowded to go popping off a 50 cal so guns is a minority sport. Handguns banned now of course.

I think an interesting debate would be whether the UK should have US gun laws and have a 90% ratio of guns to people. Whether it would benefit the UK to flood the place with say 50 million new guns so it looked like the US stats. Would that help or hinder ? In other words where would be an ideal starting point for gun ownership given a clean slate. Just before anyone answers that, I had 150,000 Pakistanis move to within 6 miles of my house in the UK – does that make a difference to the answer and should they get say 130,000 guns to make it like the US ratio ?

Basically, the conditions and culture are so different that comparisons are pretty much worthless.

So turning back to the US, the stats on car deaths etc are interesting, but the murder rate is 44 times the UK murder rate, so I think some adjustments might help. In particular, there are many factors about a person that would get a refusal in the UK. For instance there are many people with mental illnesses, drunkenness and violence in the US who are not felons are have not been judged mentally incapacitated. In the UK they don’t get a gun – in the US they do. Again it’s a cultural thing that the US accepts that without an actual court conviction, these people cannot be denied. In the UK, the population want these people to be denied.
I suppose I am answering my own question really in that even liberal gun owners in the US would never go to a system where the Police had any input into the refusal (which is easily appealed). That is because government and Police etc in the US are held in pretty low esteem and not trusted the same.

So there we have it

I had to wait 6 months from initial diagnosis to surgery for hernia repair here in the states.

Our system ain't all that quick. I had to wait 3 months just to see a surgeon.

There are lots of other benefits in the UK system. A cousin of mine lives there and while on government paid maternity leave a nurse came and visited her for the vast majority of the initial well-baby checks. She never had to leave the house. We had to go back in 7 days, 2 weeks, etc etc.... schlepping this newborn all over the place in the cold. Again, the well-baby visits are free in the UK. Here we paid our co-pay, our insurance premiums and, of course, our employer footed half of the insurance premium or we couldn't afford it at all. For our family of four, we pay about $500 per month in medical and my employer pays $500 per month. I bet if I paid $1,000 a month in health care taxes that that could go a long way. And I would be willing to pay more if I had free health care for life, free mental care, free dental care, free nursing home care, free convalescent home care, free physical therapy. Don't forget, you can get private insurance too if you want to be sure to get priority at for-profit hospitals, etc.

My wife's family is from Canada and many of them have a houses in Florida that they come to stay in for a month at a time. While down they are constantly mortified at the state of our health care and the amount of money we have to pay for it. Not one of them would trade. And she has a rather large family, so we are not talking about a sample of 1.

Do you know why the drugs in Canada are so cheap ... cheap enough that our seniors regularly make runs across the border to get drugs? They are subsidized by the Canadian government. Its their taxes. I am still amazed they let us come over and buy them.

Anyway, I am familiar with 4 different 'socialized' systems via family living abroad. I would be excited if we adopted anything approaching their systems.

Leucoandro wrote:I did a bit of checking a while back, and it seems that British citizens go on more "Health Vacations" (Surgery in other countries), than just about any other first world country (About 4 times higher per capita than the U.S.)

I bet they can make that choice because they have the disposable income.

Basically, can't go get what you want if you don't have the cash. Fewer and fewer folks in the US have the cash.

Plus, 'other countries' is a hell of a lot closer for them than it is for us. To be comparable in distance, you'd have to research folks who travel 2 or 3 states away for a surgery. After all, the entire british isles fit into an area roughly the size of montana and idaho. Roughly. For a londoner to go to france is like a montanan to take a trip to minnesota. For a brit to head to germany or italy, that's like going from montana to michigan or wisconsin. Roughly. And americans travel further than those distances to go to the super bowl.

So, I don't think any part of that "health vacation" point is worth the pixels it took to present it to you. We should probably ignore it from here on as it is likely HealthCorp propaganda.

+1

I've never lived in Canada or the UK but I have lived in New Zealand and I can tell you the health care system kicks ass. If you're sick or injured you go to the doctor or hospital and they fix you up. That's it. You just don't have to think about it unless you're sick or injured.

My brother is an very wealthy man and he does have private insurance (I think) should there be a treatment he or his family want or need that is not covered by the state system but he is not the norm. If any of his three kids need to see a doctor his wife puts them in the stroller or takes them by the hand and they walk to the local evil state run health clinic and get the care/medicine they need, from the doctor they've all been seeing since they were born and the nurses who came to visit them in their home form day one, free of charge.

Are taxes higher in NZ. Yes. Are they the $1600 a month I and the company I work for pay in insurance premiums every month for my healthy family of three higher, hell no. New Zealand just made the grade as the best place in the world to live and the happiest people and this is one of the reasons, IMO.

The system here is an indefensible broken sham.

Yes the health care is so expensive here in the US but I have found the service very good. Being a bit of a hypo, I discovered a floater in my eye and googled it and it said get it checked you might have a detached retina and be blind in 24 hours. I got on the phone to an eye hospital 1 mile away and they saw me 10 minutes later. Just a floater so phew !
In the UK you are seen immediately for serious stuff (suspected heart attack etc) but heck that was fast and it would have taken a while there.
Trouble is my wife is 10 years younger and can't retire as she supplies our health care. I reckon if she retires at 55 we would pay - what 12k pa at least for insurance that is likely to pay up - and for 10 years - so 120k.
I retired at 54 in England as Health care isnt an issue so you can live on peanuts (I mean little money !). Heck we might have to move to England for a few years - just when I had dried out !

The health care is say 50% better in the US (at least) but costs 300% as much as it costs the UK taxpayer per head. We have a 'greeter' at our hospital (I call her Greta Garbo) and they drive round the car park picking people up from their cars. When you come out, they employ someone to wave and say 'Have a nice day". Money no object.

Heck in the UK you pay for the hospital car park and they clamp your car if your time runs out (I mean your parking ticket runs out)

Harrogate hospital is nice and they bring you coffee and biscuits and get a Doc to you fast. Inner cities are hours and no biccy ! So it depends.

So yes the US service is better - but 300% better ?

Dentists are unprincipled sharks in both countries and would knock your teeth out if they couldn't find some work

There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

You know the quickest way for a politician to get unelected in the U.K. or any other country with socialized medicine? Say you want to scrap nationalized health care.
Here's another story: I know a vet who is in the National Guard and recently got back from Afghanistan. He is 42 years old and has trouble with his back. So he is on a VA health insurance plan. I had a conversation with him recently:
Vet: " Anyone who is for government controlled healthcare should deal with the VA."
Me: " You got your meds, right?"
Vet: " Yeah. But I had to fill out a bunch of forms."
Me: " Me too. Plus I got charged $5.00 a pill, plus the doctors visit so I could get a prescription. With the co- pay... $200.00 for one fuckin' visit."
Vet: " Ummmm..."
Me: " Tell you what, if you hate the VA so much, get off their plan and buy private health insurance."
Vet: " I can't afford that!"

Healthcare in UK and rest of the Europe is more oriented to prevention than on treatment. I think that is one of the reasons why it's so expensive in the USA. But we are forgetting to state what is an obvious advantage of health systems in Europe - people have a peace of mind! And because of that they are less stressed, they have no worries about loosing their house because illness, as such they are more productive, they are even more willing to take business risks (because they know that even if they loose everything, they will still have free medical care)... Need I say more?

Antiquus wrote:There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

But do they employ people to stand outside and say " have a good day" as you leave ?

Actually I have spoken to a few Canadians and they all seemed pretty happy with the arrangements there

I think the middle course is where it's at - the US can afford to scale down the over provision of hospital facilities and the over profitability of insurance companies so that the quality is still very good, but the cost is less and everyone can get it. I recommend everyone to read 'In place of fear' by Aneurin Bevan - a very cheap book and nice simple language that explains all his thoughts when setting up the UK system. He explains why it is best for the service to treat foreigners who are visiting and just everyone, without reference to whether they have had wage deductions. It was all very practical and not just pie in the sky

The arguments of the medicos and the private interests and their tactics to stop the NHS being born were exactly the same as in the US right now and it was 1948. It could have been written yesterday ! When asked how he did it and got the doctors and vested interest on board he said said " I stuffed their mouths with gold"

allserene wrote:

Antiquus wrote:There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

But do they employ people to stand outside and say " have a good day" as you leave ?

Actually I have spoken to a few Canadians and they all seemed pretty happy with the arrangements there

I think the middle course is where it's at - the US can afford to scale down the over provision of hospital facilities and the over profitability of insurance companies so that the quality is still very good, but the cost is less and everyone can get it. I recommend everyone to read 'In place of fear' by Aneurin Bevan - a very cheap book and nice simple language that explains all his thoughts when setting up the UK system. He explains why it is best for the service to treat foreigners who are visiting and just everyone, without reference to whether they have had wage deductions. It was all very practical and not just pie in the sky

The arguments of the medicos and the private interests and their tactics to stop the NHS being born were exactly the same as in the US right now and it was 1948. It could have been written yesterday ! When asked how he did it and got the doctors and vested interest on board he said said " I stuffed their mouths with gold"

Canada had the same public debate when they initiated their province based health insurance plan and every scare tactic was used. It provides a basic level of health care for everyone which can be augmented with private insurance.

We need single payer in this country because our health insurance is not portable, it's employer based. Lose your job and there goes your health insurance. We were sold managed care as the solution to health care costs and all it did was add another pig to the health costs trough. And that pig is now the biggest eater, I'd like to send it off to the butcher.

Labour under Clement Atlee really stirred up the UK after many years of Tory governments, the NHS was probably their most lasting legacy. We have yet to see what changes Cameron will make to the NHS.

JayFromPA wrote:I bet they can make that choice because they have the disposable income.

Basically, can't go get what you want if you don't have the cash. Fewer and fewer folks in the US have the cash.

Plus, 'other countries' is a hell of a lot closer for them than it is for us. To be comparable in distance, you'd have to research folks who travel 2 or 3 states away for a surgery. After all, the entire british isles fit into an area roughly the size of montana and idaho. Roughly. For a londoner to go to france is like a montanan to take a trip to minnesota. For a brit to head to germany or italy, that's like going from montana to michigan or wisconsin. Roughly. And americans travel further than those distances to go to the super bowl.

So, I don't think any part of that "health vacation" point is worth the pixels it took to present it to you. We should probably ignore it from here on as it is likely HealthCorp propaganda.

I'm sorry, I figured that everyone here knew what a health vacation was. In the UK, a person will either get turned down for treatment, or be on a waiting list where they might not have the surgery for 6 months to 2 years. To decrease the wait time, the person can buy private insurance, or pay out of pocket for a private hospital in the UK. The second option is that the person can fly to India, Pakistan or Thailand to have the surgery there. Often health vacations are chosen over private hospitals in the UK, because the cost is often about half, the hospital cares for the person longer (two weeks vs a couple days is standard).

The reasons that Americans go on these health vacations is similar. Either they do not have insurance, or the co-pay for there insurance would cost more than a health vacation.

People from the UK do not tend to go to Germany or France on health vacations because the cost would be prohibitivly expensive. The universal healthcare system in Germany can be very expensive if you need to use the doctor more than is allowed. (I had a girlfriend that needed to go to the OBGYN for a kidney infection, but she had already used her free visit for the year, so it cost about $500 euro). Thailand, India, and Pakistan have a very good private healthcare system at a price which seems very inexpensive to even modest income people from 1st world countries. I do understand that the universal systems in those countries are lacking.

I would encourage you to study a little more on health vacations for more background.


Charlie

Leucoandro wrote:

JayFromPA wrote:I bet they can make that choice because they have the disposable income.

Basically, can't go get what you want if you don't have the cash. Fewer and fewer folks in the US have the cash.

Plus, 'other countries' is a hell of a lot closer for them than it is for us. To be comparable in distance, you'd have to research folks who travel 2 or 3 states away for a surgery. After all, the entire british isles fit into an area roughly the size of montana and idaho. Roughly. For a londoner to go to france is like a montanan to take a trip to minnesota. For a brit to head to germany or italy, that's like going from montana to michigan or wisconsin. Roughly. And americans travel further than those distances to go to the super bowl.

So, I don't think any part of that "health vacation" point is worth the pixels it took to present it to you. We should probably ignore it from here on as it is likely HealthCorp propaganda.

I'm sorry, I figured that everyone here knew what a health vacation was. In the UK, a person will either get turned down for treatment, or be on a waiting list where they might not have the surgery for 6 months to 2 years. To decrease the wait time, the person can buy private insurance, or pay out of pocket for a private hospital in the UK. The second option is that the person can fly to India, Pakistan or Thailand to have the surgery there. Often health vacations are chosen over private hospitals in the UK, because the cost is often about half, the hospital cares for the person longer (two weeks vs a couple days is standard).

The reasons that Americans go on these health vacations is similar. Either they do not have insurance, or the co-pay for there insurance would cost more than a health vacation.

People from the UK do not tend to go to Germany or France on health vacations because the cost would be prohibitivly expensive. The universal healthcare system in Germany can be very expensive if you need to use the doctor more than is allowed. (I had a girlfriend that needed to go to the OBGYN for a kidney infection, but she had already used her free visit for the year, so it cost about $500 euro). Thailand, India, and Pakistan have a very good private healthcare system at a price which seems very inexpensive to even modest income people from 1st world countries. I do understand that the universal systems in those countries are lacking.

I would incourage you to study a little more on health vacations for more background.


Charlie

Charlie, I would encourage you to live in a country with a socialized heath care system for a while before you dazzle us with any more of your third hand knowledge of the subject.

allserene wrote:The health care is say 50% better in the US (at least) but costs 300% as much as it costs the UK taxpayer per head. We have a 'greeter' at our hospital (I call her Greta Garbo) and they drive round the car park picking people up from their cars. When you come out, they employ someone to wave and say 'Have a nice day". Money no object.

I think that is really the crux of the matter. The cost in the U.S. has inflated way too rapidly. Some talk of unneeded test as being part of the reason for the cost. I have never had an unneeded test in the U.S. I believe that we have a quiet a few factors that cause our costs to be so high. While Insurance plays a part in it, I do not think I can blame insurance itself. For example, I go to a dentist in the states that does not accept insurance. He charges $75 to fill a cavity, $75 to clean your teeth, and $75 to pull a wizdom tooth. The denists where I went to college worked relied almost entirely on insurance. They charged $500 to fill a cavity. I did not bother to ask about cleanings or pulling teeth, because I was sure that cost would be far out of line as well. I also understand that malpractice insurance drives the cost of practice up as well. As I understand, some doctors spend the first 6 months of income (after paying obligations on equipment, employee's etc. for malpractice insurance. Then we have Medicaid that does not pay all of it's bills, so that is tacked onto other persons bills.

I believe that malpractice reform would have an impact. While I hate to put a dollar figure on life or limb, it has been done with automobile insurance, and that helps keep automotive insurance at a reasonable cost.

allserene wrote:Heck in the UK you pay for the hospital car park and they clamp your car if your time runs out (I mean your parking ticket runs out)

Harrogate hospital is nice and they bring you coffee and biscuits and get a Doc to you fast. Inner cities are hours and no biccy ! So it depends.

So yes the US service is better - but 300% better ?

Dentists are unprincipled sharks in both countries and would knock your teeth out if they couldn't find some work

Wow, that is pretty strict. My parking ticket ran out while I was at a hospital Germany, I was ticketed 10 Euro (although I understand they have the option of towing your car).

Antiquus wrote:There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is because of medical problems. The third leading cause of bankruptcy in Canada is from Medical problems.

http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankrup ... canada.htm


Charlie

allserene wrote:All I can say of the NHS is that much of the stuff you hear over here is simply not true.

I figured as much. I try to rely on information from mainstream british publications for information on the system.

allserene wrote:There is no insurance entitlement or insurance fund - everything is free. Of course nothing is free but in the UK they pay tax directly to the government and in the US they pay 3 times as much in insurance.

So many things go into the cost of Insurance on the States. One is Doctors using questionable accounting practices to charge the insurance companies. Another is Insurance companies looking out for investor. Then we even have hidden taxes private insurance policies (before the most recent healthcare package was passed, there was a tax of about $1,000 on each family policies to help fund medicaid, I am not sure if that tax went up with the new healthcare law.)

allserene wrote:So basically it's the usual story - if you are financially well off in the US then it's the place to be. If you buy your own insurance and get poor and sick - you are far better off in the UK.

This has me wondering if a hybrid system would be good. One where everyone is required to pay into a system for basic healthcare. Additional coverage would be from private insurance. The main problem I can see us having with this system is the one we currently have where people choose not to pay for insurance, but want premium coverage from the hospital.

allserene wrote:Kings and Lords are part of the 1776 stuff and my club members were telephone company linesmen and leather saddle makers, TV aerial riggers, police, bricklayers etc so no you don’t have to be rich – but it was 140 miles coast to coast and with 60 some million people it’s a bit crowded to go popping off a 50 cal so guns is a minority sport. Handguns banned now of course.

Maybe I am misunderstanding from what I have seen on british history (It also might be that I did a horrible job explaining myself). My understanding is that firearms were never really all that popular with the working class of British. My understanding that hunting (even before the advent of firearms) was very restricted as it was considered the king's game. Farmers would have had firearms to protect livestock, or scare away birds trying to eat the grain out of their fields. I always figured that because hunting was inaccessable to most people in firearms, gun ownership never really took off. It seems that is a strong factor of why they are not popular in Germany [combined with high licensing costs, trophy fee's, permits to justify a purchase, etc], even though there were groups of hunters that expanded beyond the weathly class at one time. As a side note, Austria seems to have a bit of a larger firearm and hunting culture than Germany.

allserene wrote:I think an interesting debate would be whether the UK should have US gun laws and have a 90% ratio of guns to people. Whether it would benefit the UK to flood the place with say 50 million new guns so it looked like the US stats. Would that help or hinder ?

In other words where would be an ideal starting point for gun ownership given a clean slate. Just before anyone answers that, I had 150,000 Pakistanis move to within 6 miles of my house in the UK – does that make a difference to the answer and should they get say 130,000 guns to make it like the US ratio ?

I am really not sure about the answer to that one. What works in one country might not work in another country. I do think that some of the laws on the books in the UK should be reviewed and questions should be asked about the merrit of those laws.

allserene wrote:So turning back to the US, the stats on car deaths etc are interesting, but the murder rate is 44 times the UK murder rate, so I think some adjustments might help.

Where did you find that? From what I could find, the Homicide rate in the U.S. is 5/100K. In the UK, the Homicide rate is 1.28/100K. The UK does not include attempts, while the US does not say if they do or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate

With Car Deaths, should we require all cars have breathalyzers installed that prevent the car from starting if you blow over a certain level?

Japan took an interesting step in reducing Drunk Driving. In Japan, all passengers in a vehicle are charged with Drunk Driving, if the Driver is driving drunk.

allserene wrote:In particular, there are many factors about a person that would get a refusal in the UK. For instance there are many people with mental illnesses, drunkenness and violence in the US who are not felons are have not been judged mentally incapacitated. In the UK they don’t get a gun – in the US they do. Again it’s a cultural thing that the US accepts that without an actual court conviction, these people cannot be denied. In the UK, the population want these people to be denied.
I suppose I am answering my own question really in that even liberal gun owners in the US would never go to a system where the Police had any input into the refusal (which is easily appealed). That is because government and Police etc in the US are held in pretty low esteem and not trusted the same.

So there we have it

I think you hint at the problem. I do not think that gun violence is the problem, I think that it is a symptom. We have a segment of the population that thinks that violence is a perfectly reasonable first response to a problem. Even if you were to get rid of all guns in the U.S., we would still have a very high homicide rate.

Reasons for denial.
Mental Illness - at some times this might have warrent, but it should not be an open ticket to take away a persons right to own firearms. With the U.S. culture loss of firearms rights could lead a person to stay away from the help they need. Also, what limits would be put on it? Would a person that has had a panic attack be banned from owning a gun? What are acceptable/unacceptable mental illnesses to withdraw the right to own firearms?
Drunkenness - I really do not know if this should be a reason. Sure I could see it if a person is drunk and acts irrisponsibly with a firearm, but if the person acts responsibly and never touches a firearm when they drink, should it be an issue? If the person goes to AA and stops drinking do they get the right back?
Violence - Unless I am missunderstanding, a person that is found guilty of certain forms of violence is no longer allowed to own a firearm.


Some in the U.S. do not fully trust the police. I am one. Police are human too, and can be corrupt just like any other human. I am originally from Arkansas, and the Police in Cross County have been caught planting drugs in peoples vehicles. Police in Cross County have also been caught for writing fraudulent speeding tickets. Police in Jonesboro have been caught violating civil rights with startling regularity (I believe the Arkansas Court of Appeals called the police in Jonesboro a renegade force).

I do not think that all police officers are bad, but I can see it as being my luck that I would get the corrupt one that would not sign my paperwork without a bribe, or turn me down because he does not like private ownership of firearms, etc. We see this to some extent in parts of California with Concealed Carry, which is a May Issue state. In many municipalities the police will only sign off on concealed carry permits for polititians, bodyguards, and actors. If you do not know somebody you can't get the permit.


Charlie

masonalannz wrote:Charlie, I would encourage you to live in a country with a socialized heath care system for a while before you dazzle us with any more of your third hand knowledge of the subject.

Ummm. I live in Germany now. Over the last eight years, I have lived in Germany for four years. Kind of why I know a little bit about German Healthcare, and why it works fine for the young, but if you are elderly it is in your best interest to have private healthcare.


Charlie

Leucoandro wrote:For example, I go to a dentist in the states that does not accept insurance. He charges $75 to fill a cavity, $75 to clean your teeth, and $75 to pull a wizdom tooth. The denists where I went to college worked relied almost entirely on insurance. They charged $500 to fill a cavity. I did not bother to ask about cleanings or pulling teeth, because I was sure that cost would be far out of line as well.

Its not malpractice that is the problem here it is the insurance companies. My wife works in healthcare and in their office with 4 providers, they have 4 people dedicated *just* to filing insurance claims and trying to get compensation out of insurance companies. My wife spends a significant amount of every day on the phone with insurance companies fighting for her patients to try to get them the prescriptions she orders. And the prices are almost like a bargaining chip. They say they charge $120 for an office visit. Your insurance company makes you pay a $25 co-pay and then they give the doctors something like $50. In fact, in offices where insurance is accepted, the uninsured almost universally pay much much more for a visit.

Dentists, and some doctors who have stopped accepting health insurance don't have to deal with the problems of dealing with insurance companies. So, they simply charge flat fees like they used to in the old days and don't have to play these number games. My wife's boss, a doctor for 40 years, says that he has to work twice as hard now to make half the money he used to make. Which means he sees twice as many patients, leaving you with half as much time to talk to him. He saw 35 patients the other day from 2:00-4:00. That is 3.4 minutes per patient. I don't mind my waiters rushing, because if they make a mistake I can just send it back. I do mind my doctor rushing.

Leucoandro wrote:

Antiquus wrote:There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is because of medical problems. The third leading cause of bankruptcy in Canada is from Medical problems.

http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankrup ... canada.htm


Charlie

BS Canadian group with a conservative agenda. The rate of personal bankruptcies in Canada in 2009 was .029%, in the US .459%.

Leucoandro wrote:

masonalannz wrote:Charlie, I would encourage you to live in a country with a socialized heath care system for a while before you dazzle us with any more of your third hand knowledge of the subject.

Ummm. I live in Germany now. Over the last eight years, I have lived in Germany for four years. Kind of why I know a little bit about German Healthcare, and why it works fine for the young, but if you are elderly it is in your best interest to have private healthcare.


Charlie

So, you are living in Germany. Are you being paid by a German company in Euros, paying income tax and utilizing their state run health care system or are you there as Military/Military Contractor or Civil Service where you live there but you are paid in dollars and your healthcare is provided in the same way as it would be were you living in the US?

Antiquus wrote:

Leucoandro wrote:

Antiquus wrote:There's always a lot of BS put out about how bad socialized medicine is. Ignore it, it's propaganda.

You know how many people went bankrupt in Canada last year due to a medical condition? None.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is because of medical problems. The third leading cause of bankruptcy in Canada is from Medical problems.

http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankrup ... canada.htm


Charlie

BS Canadian group with a conservative agenda. The rate of personal bankruptcies in Canada in 2009 was .029%, in the US .459%.

Sounds like your numbers indicate that we have an all around bankruptcy problem in America. I suspect a good deal of it has to do with Americans spending many years saving little to no money, and running up credit card debts. (BTW, I like links to source of percents, statistics, quotes, etc.)

Did you read the link I posted, or just decide that it was some BS Canadian group with a conservative agenda because they indicate that Medical reasons is a leading cause of bankruptcy?


Here is a Canadian Government website for you, dealing with Bankruptcy in the elderly.

As noted above, medical reasons are quite significant as a primary cause of bankruptcy. Of note is that medical reasons are more significant for the younger age group and decline monotonically as one grows older. Medical reasons are the primary cause of bankruptcy for 15.59% of those aged 55-59; 15.96% for those aged 60-64, but dropping to only 10.78% for those over age 75.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/bsf-osb.ns ... 01686.html


Charlie

Charlie, some numbers for the US:

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_stud ... y-2009.pdf

masonalannz wrote:

Leucoandro wrote:

masonalannz wrote:Charlie, I would encourage you to live in a country with a socialized heath care system for a while before you dazzle us with any more of your third hand knowledge of the subject.

Ummm. I live in Germany now. Over the last eight years, I have lived in Germany for four years. Kind of why I know a little bit about German Healthcare, and why it works fine for the young, but if you are elderly it is in your best interest to have private healthcare.


Charlie

So, you are living in Germany. Are you being paid by a German company in Euros, paying income tax and utilizing their state run health care system or are you there as Military/Military Contractor or Civil Service where you live there but you are paid in dollars and your healthcare is provided in the same way as it would be were you living in the US?

I am in the military.
From '03-'05, I lived in Germany and had a had a german girlfriend durring that entire time. She was on the public system. Her father was on the private system (people in Germany designated as "persons of national importance" are provided with private healthcare. Her grandparents and mother were on the public system.

From '05-07, I lived in Okinawa, my experience there was more limited, but I did talk about the system with my Okinawan friends.

From '07-'08, I lived in Honduras, where I met my wife. I am fairly familiar with the Honduran system, and my wife can provide more information should you desire.

From '08-present day, I have lived in Germany. While I primarily utilize the military healthcare system (really not wild about it [It is as bad as the rumors of the UK healthcare system]), my wife has private insurance and primarily utilizes the German Healthcare system.


Charlie