Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri May 24 18:02:43 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / UK deports refugee back to 3rd world
Seb
Member
Thu May 02 10:07:34
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48105453

Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 12:03:51
We're not the ones who cant even afford police officers, you limey wanker.

I cant wait until Trump forces you to gut the NHS in exchange for a trade deal.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 12:04:25
Also, since the man is in his 70s he qualifies for Medicare.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 02 13:56:59
Lol the UK has the same per capita income as alabama. Talk about third world.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 02 14:03:42
Also the UK has such a shitty education or intelligence level that seb, supposedly one of their more educated peoples, doesnt understand the difference between mean and median.

Yikes.

London = mobile.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 14:48:45
Sam,

Not a fair comparison.

Mobile hasn't just greenlit a gigantic dildo to dominate their skyline.

http://www....uk/news/amp/business-46259419

Fucking nonces.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 02 14:57:41
Skyscrapers are phallic, invented by white people, sexist, and part of the patriarchy. They should be banned.

-seb, probably. Also huffpo.
hood
Member
Thu May 02 15:23:41
But 2 sky scrapers are mammaric.
Seb
Member
Thu May 02 16:30:48
And yet no Brit is pitching up in the US to get basic medical care.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 16:42:18
Seb,

It's not our problem if Britfags are too poor to use our superior healthcare system.
Seb
Member
Thu May 02 16:49:53
Except it's manifestly not superior. It's expensive and inferior. Because you have incompetent governance.

You die younger. Your survival rates for cancer are lower.

Hell, your food standards are so bad you have orders of magnitude higher incidence of food poisoning.

And now you've started dumping your dementia patients on us as health refugees.

Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 02 17:01:48
If you are uppermiddle class or better the US healthcare system is usually better. The best money can buy. Rich people from around the world, including the UK, pay shitloads to come to Boston for the best treatment on earth for example.

If you are a pleb, a socialist system like the UK is better.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 17:15:06
"If you are a pleb, a socialist system like the UK is better."

And there's the problem. In the UK, 99% of the population are plebs.

(not counting Russian billionaires property investors of course)
Seb
Member
Thu May 02 17:46:27
Sam Adams:

Dude. I work in a professional services firm. We have private medical insurance, and I compared it to our US branch which has what is generally considered good coverage. It costs me less than £2k a year for my entire family tax free (so actually under £1200) and it's more comprehensive in coverage than the US version. US staff relocating or poached from US fintech firms are all blown away too.

There's nothing in the US private market you can't buy in Europe, and even then it's cheaper. It's a lie you tell yourselves to pretend to are not living in the 19th Century / third world country.

You just created a system that's hugely inefficient, and then rations access. It's so inefficient that even our private health care is cheaper largely because the public sector takes care of the expensive chronic conditions better and so much cheaper that these conditions never reach the private sector.

Your system is just fucked.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 02 18:32:08
"It costs me less than £2k a year for my entire family tax free"

Lol. And mine covers my whole family with a no deductible cadilac plan for 0 dollars per year, in a system where doctors are so worried about lawsuits i get whatever service i want. Oh and i pay lower taxes too.

Sounds like you are a pleb seb, at a plebian company with mediocre plans, so given your lesser abilities, you might want to stay in a more forgiving socialist nation.

Now yes the US has a pretty badly beurocratic mess, especially for the plebian class, but not lets pretend for a second that any nation can can compete with our high end healthcare.
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 01:58:20
Sam:

What's a deductable?

Your insurer charges your employer nothing? How do they make money?




obaminated
Member
Fri May 03 02:10:52
"how does insurance work" - seb
obaminated
Member
Fri May 03 02:10:52
"how does insurance work" - seb
mexicantardnado
Member
Fri May 03 04:42:15
duuuur I has no duuur enshorence duuur im duur jelly duuuur
hood
Member
Fri May 03 07:41:35
Deductible is all of the extra tax money you pay to fund the public sector.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri May 03 11:20:25
"What's a deductable? "

Lol!
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 13:42:15
Sarcasm is lost in you people.

In the UK market, the charges on covered items are called excesses. I.e. you crash your car, you might have to pay the first £500.

There is no such thing as excesses in UK health insurance policies. Sam thinks he has a premium product, but the fact is you have deductibles built into your health insurance system as a means for insurance firms to try and limit healthcare providers from racking up higher charges by setting a limit on how much the recipient can afford.

It's a rationing system reflecting the inherent inefficiency of your system.

Zero excess charges aren't just the norm for UK private health insurance, they simply don't exist because the essential point of private healthcare is the convenience of not fucking around with stupid process and admin in the NHS.

Hence "what's a deductible" - the only reason I know is because I have looked at US healthcare largely due to engaging with you morons. Otherwise, it's kind of like knowing the terminology for the tools used to make mud bricks. We don't have much use for third world stuff here.


Sam Adams
Member
Fri May 03 14:24:18
"because the essential point of private healthcare is the convenience of not fucking around with stupid process and admin in the NHS. "

You just made a huge argument against public healthcare.
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 17:43:37
Sam Adams:

Not really. Admin and processes are annoying. As I can afford it, sure, being able to get a GP appointment at my convenience rather than at theirs is great. Would I likely bother if it wasn't tax efficient and effectively free as it comes from the flex benefit pot? Probably not.

But for me the difference is whether or not I need to take a day off work and/or maybe wait a week for non serious issues.
Maybe I avoid a trip to out of hours.

It's nice.

But that's hardly an argument against universal, free at point of use healthcare Sam, where anyone can get seen and treated.

And what idiot would want to live in an economy where healthcare overall costs twice as much (one way or another you are paying for the additional costs which are, from a Maro perspective, and deadweight cost) yet deliver worse outcomes overall and no better at the top end.

It's called civilisation.

Sam Adams
Member
Fri May 03 19:02:56
"where anyone can get seen and treated"

Darwin thinks this is a bad idea.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 04:38:17
Sam:

Darwin didn't actually.
Brainy UPer
Member
Sat May 04 05:09:40
How interesting--Satan is trying to invoke the social Darwinism concept and provides concrete proof that he doesn't understand one thing about Darwin. This should be entertaining...
Nekran
Member
Tue May 07 13:41:49
It could've been entertaining if Sammy cared about science or facts.

Alas, he does not.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 07 14:33:31
Weve come full circle. It used to be the religious right that denied evolution and genetics because it conflicted with their god.

Now its the whiny left that says genetics is wrong because it is offensive and politically incorrect.
Nekran
Member
Tue May 07 16:00:39
No Sammy, you just don't understand the theory. Helping out your own species tends very much to be a good evolutionary strategy. Especially for mammals. For extremely obvious reasons. I expect high school kids to have this basic understanding of the ToE. And I also expect you not to. And to reply with some more bullshit that has nothing to do with what was posted. Which is what you do.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 07 16:34:11
"I support survival of the weak, because that way i survive"

-nekran
Brainy UPer
Member
Tue May 07 17:02:35
Ah thank you for the laughs, Satan. You've really shown the complete lack of understand and inferring what no one said. You've become lazy.
Dukhat
Member
Wed May 08 00:24:16
Complete non-sequitur from Social Darwinism into genetics. LoL. Lazy trolling at best. Delusional grandstanding at worst.
Nekran
Member
Wed May 08 01:02:23
The amounts of stupid in that one pathetic attempt at an insult is staggering.

No understanding of the ToE whatsoever.

I mean let's say I was your undefined and meaningless term "weak". Obviously it would be the intelligent thing for me to support survival of these "weak" people then. And I'd be living in a society where this does indeed happen. But, so, not only would it then be intelligent of me to support this, this would positively make us all fit accordinng to the ToE (as long as we are procreating, obviously).
Seb
Member
Wed May 08 09:41:29
Sam, I've reproduced, whereas you and your duff genes haven't. Which one of us is better fit for our ecological niche?
Seb
Member
Wed May 08 09:42:56
It's funny that Sam complains about being being called a Nazi even as he agrees with pretty much all the Nazis policies.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 11:45:02
Ahhhhh, the classic leftist debate tactic.

I ran out of facts so you are nazi.

"Sam, I've reproduced,"

Great, another whiny transgender activist in about 15 years. Exactly what the world needs. Lol.

Nekran, obviously the weak would logically vote for policies that support the weak.

This is how we get socialists.




obaminated
Member
Wed May 08 13:24:02
the funny thing is that Seb would probably be proud if his son decided he should be a girl.
Nekran
Member
Wed May 08 15:00:40
"Nekran, obviously the weak would logically vote for policies that support the weak."

The smart ones would. The other ones tend to vote more right wing.



You do realise the ToE puts no value on anything apart from reproduction, right? If you are less intelligent or physically weaker, but you have more offspring? You are the fit one.

And that is not even touching on the fact that organisms aren't even the players in the ToE. Genes are. And the "strong" ones are the ones that we share with wheat and shit. And they will keep on "winning" for the foreseeable future, don't you worry. Sorry to inform you that pale skin and blonde hair are very much not in that "strong" category though... come to think of it, you should be anti-white, really. They're such demonstrably weak genes. Their share in the gene-pool has been steadily falling and it was never very high to begin with.

Really... when you think about it, this white power bullshit is the weak desperately trying to protect the weak. And it's such an unwinnable battle too, considering how the genetics of skin color work. That's a pretty funny realisation :)
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 15:21:51
"You do realise the ToE puts no value on anything apart from reproduction, right?"

Not quite. Its really about survival. A white rabbit in a snow free world can reproduce all it wants. Those kids are all getting eaten by eagles.
Nekran
Member
Wed May 08 15:37:00
A snow free world full of eagles?

In any realistic setting, if they breed enough, the colour of their fur will just adapt to their environment.

But yes, obviously the reproduction of the offspring keeps mattering. You can have 100 kids, if none of them have kids, your end up unfit.

So your chances to end up fit in any sort of long run seem pretty damn small, considering current circumstances.

Mind you, if my life goes according to plan, they will be 0 for me. But I don't care. You seem to think this important.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 16:10:47


"But yes, obviously the reproduction of the offspring keeps mattering. You can have 100 kids, if none of them have kids, your end up unfit. "

Indeed. Having good kids is generally better than having more kids.
Nekran
Member
Wed May 08 16:27:40
"Indeed. Having good kids is generally better than having more kids."

It really isn't. Especially not in the long run. Too great a chance that something will happen along the chain.

Evolutionarily speaking, you tend to want to play the numbers game.

I mean... sure mammals have done OK in the recent few dozen million years. But let's face it, mammals are still the new kid on the block and account for a laughably small percentage of the gene pool of life.

And you are talking about specialising in care for your children even more than humans already do?

Seems very risky to me... just one Sammy that is unable to breed costs you so much resources :D
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 16:34:09
"Too great a chance"

Well that depends on the actual chance of survival and the number of kids.

2 kids with a 99% of breeding is better than 50 kids with a 2% chance. But 50 thousand at 2% would be better still.
Seb
Member
Wed May 08 16:54:30
Sam:

That defence doesn't really work for people who espouse white supremacy, claim black people are racially inferior, and argue that inferior people should be eliminated from the gene pool.

In this case, the reason we disagree is *because* you are espousing Nazism.

If you don't like being called a NAZI, don't keep advocating their signature philosophies.
Seb
Member
Wed May 08 16:56:49
Nekran:

Yes. Sam must be a terrible disappointment to his parents and grandparents. All those resources gone into inferior genes.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 17:34:24
Waaaaa

Waaaaaaaaaaa

Nazi!!!
Nekran
Member
Wed May 08 17:58:40
"Well that depends on the actual chance of survival and the number of kids."

You think your kids' survival and procreation rates would be that significantly better than say a low income ghetto family's kids?

Not a chance.

"Waaaaa

Waaaaaaaaaaa

Nazi!!!"

You must be so glad you get to do this waaaaaa-nazi-thing in this thread, considering how demonstrably wrong you are about evolution and its implications.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 19:02:41
"You think your kids' survival and procreation rates would be that significantly better than say a low income ghetto family's kids? "

Human evolution has selected for intelligence more than any other life form ever has. A few generations of whining sjws wont change this.
Rugian
Member
Wed May 08 19:03:04
GP pressure: Numbers show first sustained drop for 50 years

By Nick Triggle Health correspondent

8 May 2019

The NHS is seeing the first sustained fall in GP numbers in the UK for 50 years, the BBC can reveal.

An analysis by the Nuffield Trust think tank for the BBC shows the number of GPs per 100,000 people has fallen from nearly 65 in 2014 to 60 last year.

The last time numbers fell like this was in the late 1960s and it comes at a time when the population is ageing and demands on GPs are rising.

Patient groups said it was causing real difficulties in making appointments.

There have been reports of waits of up to seven weeks for a routine appointment, while those needing urgent appointments have been forced to queue outside practices in the early morning to guarantee to be seen.

The pressures on GPs are being looked at by the BBC as part of a special day of coverage, including a Panorama investigation.

Dr Helen Stokes-Lampard, president of the Royal College of GPs, said: "General practice cannot be allowed to fail. It is an absolute cornerstone of the NHS."

NHS bosses maintain that steps are being taken to improve access, with more GPs being trained and extra support staff recruited to work alongside them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-48191438

Seven weeks for an appointment. ROFL
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 19:38:56

"There have been reports of waits of up to seven weeks for a routine appointment, while those needing urgent appointments have been forced to queue outside practices in the early morning to guarantee to be seen. "

Lol thats some serious third world shit.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed May 08 19:52:52
http://www...tional-health-service.amp.html

Lol shithole
Nekran
Member
Thu May 09 00:46:53
"Human evolution has selected for intelligence more than any other life form ever has. A few generations of whining sjws wont change this."

That speaks against the chances of your hypothetical kids once more.

But even if it didn't, why would a more intelligent person's chances to procreate be better nowadays and in the foreseeable future?

Luckily for you, the selection for intelligence has happened a long time ago and you were allowed to wander this earth.
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 03:34:36
Sammy
Human evolution as a term is barely registerable. We have been human for 100 000 years give or take. Or about 400 generations.

What we do know about evolution in that period is that it bottlenecks quite regularly on the xy line and is extremely diverse on the xx line.

Intelligence would not be the guiding force behind xy fitness. Fitness would be characterised by traits contemporary times consider to be hard core mental illness.

Fitness on the xx line is characterised by variation.

Survival of the fittest in any morder sense means in essence survival of matriachal dna.
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 03:35:23
(evolution is measured in 10s of thousands generations. Hence 400 barely registering)
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 03:42:11
It does stand to reason. Fitness for a cooperative, intelligent, and complex species would embrace variation to promote a wide spectrum of skillsets.

In that context, conflict is just a surtax on survival. Humans will never invest enough to ensure absolute protection (as the scale of investment would cripple development in other areas).

Instead, we have evolved in a way that protects xx dna in contexts when conflicts arise. Rendering the conflicts irrelevant from an xx fitness perspective.

xy deformity costs are just the price of doing business and the cost is carried almost entirely by poor xy dna survival over a number of generations.
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 03:47:37
Moral of the story:
Bet on the x in your genetic composition to carry over long term. The y is going to die off fast.
Seb
Member
Thu May 09 06:53:51
Rugian:

Waiting 7 weeks for a non urgent treatment is the worst case for anyone on the UK.
The worst case in the US is you don't see a doctor until whatever it is that you might have asked for a GP appt for in the UK has become acute and critical, and you go to emergency instead. Or dont and die.

So er, yeah, NHS is immeasurably better.



Seb
Member
Thu May 09 06:55:47
Sam:

No. Third world is no coverage at all. Like over 10% of the us.
Seb
Member
Thu May 09 06:58:30
Waa waaaa is exactly what a NAZI would say - conviction that they were being persecuted is what they used to justify their views.
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 07:56:18
Seb
To be fair, GP density is a bit low (ours has an upper cap of 2500 people per GP). But I would attribute that to policy. You have a government that seems to be making NHS so bad that the US system might begin to look attractive.

=============

Moral 2
Don't cite evolution as a justification.
Seb
Member
Thu May 09 11:51:32
Jergul:

That's nutty hyperbole - primary issue is pipeline.

It takes the best part of a decade to train a junior doctor to the point he is allowed to treat patients.

Shortages of GPs now reflect three things:
1. Retirement and leaving practice (*cough brexit*)
2. Doctors relocating to the UK to practice (*cough brexit)
3. Training levels in 2010-2015...


jergul
large member
Thu May 09 12:20:32
Seb
You think that is nutty hyperbole.

Feel free to throw new labour in amongst those underfunding the NHS. Wilson was the last soft-left PM in the UK.

The shortage then relates to chronic underfunding and a heavy reliance on other countries carrying the cost of licensing physicians to compensate for underfunding in your educational system.

It is hardly a bomb that people - even gps - retire.

Lack of GPs in the pipeline is symptomatic of chronic underfunding in several areas.

Perhaps tax the rich more?






Seb
Member
Thu May 09 12:42:19
Jergul:

No govt wants to make the NHS worse. Nor is it remotely comparible to the US. Both of those are nutty hyperbole.

Re underfunding, it's more about distribution. New Labour gave GPs an absurdly generous pay settlement in the early 2000s leading to a clamp down in training to restrict numbers as people were doing that over specialisms.

Long lead time always leads to boom busts.
jergul
large member
Thu May 09 13:41:53
Why are you even defending low GP coverage? My main point is that underfunding is systematic and has been going on for a long time.

Clamping down on training would do nothing for as long as you continued to import GPs. Except of course making the UK more dependent on other countries educating their health care professionals.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 09 13:44:11
"Third world is no coverage at all."

False. Letting the dumbasses die is a better idea than universal coverage without question.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 09 13:46:05
Why should a junkie who makes terrible choices get any treatment at all while law abiding hardworking citizens wait in line?
Nekran
Member
Thu May 09 14:51:44
"False. Letting the dumbasses die is a better idea than universal coverage without question."

Only if facts and science don't interest you. It is better for everyone when everyone has a good access to healthcare and a better chance in society. It is both cheaper and better for everyone involved to have a good social security system than to create a bunch of poverty and crime.

Your delusions that poor people and crime will just dissapear if you make their life even harder and ethnicially cleanse the population to weaken the gene pool is patently insane and retarded.

"Why should a junkie who makes terrible choices get any treatment at all while law abiding hardworking citizens wait in line?"

Because that is better for everyone.


I mean, you make terrible choices as well, yet I don't think you should be left to die in your terrible dystopian wasteland dreamsociety where nobody picks up the garbage or makes food or does anything actually useful for society, because that is beneath all the inhabitants who don't think people who do these jobs deserve to be able to live decently.
Nekran
Member
Thu May 09 14:55:25
They'd be relatively in the know about the temperature and humidity of their garbage pile the next day though.
Seb
Member
Thu May 09 15:38:35
Jergul:

My criticism is that you appeared to be repeating the claim the govt is running down the NHS to prepare for selling it off to US health corps, a staple piece of batshittery of the far left.

You are also incorrect regarding the cause of GP shortages.

"Clamping down on training would do nothing for as long as you continued to import GPs"

That's not how career progression works in the NHS. Doctors who train are pretty much gauranteed a place.

Sam:

Sounds pretty third world to me. No social security net, theological approach to allocation of public services.

Thing is Sam, I've lived in developing countries. They are libertarian paradises. If you are even moderately well off, you can live like aristocracy. Like actual servants.

It's strange when you think of this world countries, you think of living as a poor person in one.




show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share