Fishfry, I think one of the reasons is shown in the following graph very clearly:



So how can the health care cost be half of what you pay in many countries and still have the ability to afford universal health care?

Now I don't believe that public sector health care is particularly efficient, yet think about it. You pay twice and even more than twice than others. And in the end, the public heath statistics are dismal. I would say the US system a racket.

I do understand and it's a real possibility, if your argument is that the US would totally f*#k up an universal health care system if the corrupt system was put to make it...

Here's a link to a WHO map tracking infections by country.

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/685d0ace521648f8a5beeeee1b9125cd

Denmark and Poland are locking down their borders too (just as earlier Czech Republic and Ukraine).

So I guess after this weekend Europe could have closed borders all around.

Just now Trump declared a national emergency in the US. — NOS4A2

Lol.

Says the guy who was just moments ago was so against federal coordinated responses (because they could go wrong) and was to leave it to local authorities and individuals. :mask:

The only problem is there is a weakness in it and that is that some decisions require collective action and then decisions need to be coordinated. — Tobias

Covid-19, SARS, MERS, Swineflu, Birdflu, all originated from animals (many wild ones) and the zoonosis seems to be something quite ordinary now days. Animals that otherwise wouldn't be in contact with humans is the reason for these new outbreaks and the reason issue why this thing has to be handled with international cooperation. Awareness and information ought to change habits.

I bet, if for some reason, black rats would be a local traditional delicacy in Arizona, you would get the occasional bubonic plague epidemic in the US. Now it's just single cases then and now. And how much people wash their hands in Minnesota wouldn't simply wouldn't be the answer.

Thanks for the links!

Czechoslovakia and Ukraine are closing their borders. After Sunday-Monday midnight, no Czechs are allowed to leave the country and no foreigners that don't have a residence permit are able to come in. Foreigners now coming from 15 countries are quarantined for two weeks. I wonder how many countries will follow the example.

There's no thought police yet in the Netherlands. I assume those assaults on your wife or your daughter don't happen frequently.

Dutch are nice people.

Cynical me: The silver lining is that people at Trump rallies have a higher chance of getting the disease and dying. — Benkei

That's a bit harsh.

At least Trump has had the opportunity to get the corona-virus from an evil European Latino foreigner:

A Brazilian official President Donald Trump met with over the weekend has tested positive for the coronavirus, but Trump said Thursday he's "not concerned" about their interaction.

Fabio Wajngarten, press secretary for Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, posed for a picture with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Bolsonaro at Trump's Florida resort over the weekend that he posted on Instagram. The press office at Brazil's presidential palace confirmed to NBC News Thursday that Wajngarten had tested positive for the coronavirus.

Make Brazil Great again! Trump, Pence and a Corona-virus patient:

I only said that healthcare systems vary from state to state, so treating it like a military or federal problem is misguided at best, disastrous at worse. With such a large scale problem federal agencies risk becoming too thin. They might as well use the infrastructure and systems already in place. — NOS4A2

Now you got me totally confused? What are you implying here?

That it's a measure of EITHER the federal agencies OR local authorities handle the issue? That's nonsense!

Look, a central coordinator is needed when face a threat like a pandemic. Local authorities, workplaces and schools etc. can decide themselves what to do just as an individual can decide what to do. Yet tackling a pandemic simply isn't something ONLY left to the individual and various communities. It is about making a uniform quick response. To get ready for a possible larger outbreak. You ideological issues simply

This is the second time you’ve brought up Japanese invasion in a thread about a pandemic. — NOS4A2

Because you utterly fail to understand the need for a concentrated effort that is simply necessitated by practical reasons here and is in no way a plot to undermine individual liberty or state/communal independence.

Just as it would be preposterous for every 50 states to create their own armed forces with their own command structures, own logistics systems etc without any unification and coordination, so it is whimsical to think that there wouldn't be synergy and genuine benefits in having a single federal institution like the CDC in preventing disease outbreaks and giving guidelines on what to do.

But I guess common sense doesn't mean a thing when it comes ideological issues, so this discussion is rather futile.

For someone who prefers security over their own liberty this might be favorable. But for someone who prefers liberty over security, this is regrettable. — NOS4A2

So it's regrettable that the Minnesotan had to defend Hawaii from a possible Japanese invasion in 1941.

OK, so you're against doing the thing you just said you're for doing (stopping the parade) because tying yourself up in a pretzel of libertarian rhetoric is preferable to admitting you are not as crazy as you would like us to think you are. — Baden

Yes. That's what I gathered too.

But it's great that someone stands up for liberty, personal freedom and small government! :nerd:

Again, I’m talking about informing the public, not deciding responses to infectious diseases. — NOS4A2

And you can inform the public annually when influenza season starts. Or that someone's got the plague in New Mexico. When should you be so worried about it...not to participate in the parade welcoming the veterans returning home? Yes, an individual is responsible for oneself, yet isn't responsible for deciding public health matters.

It is more a healthcare issue than a military invasion. — NOS4A2

You are giving no reason why a pandemic would be a normal healthcare issue and to be decided at the local level. Putting the decision let's say to a communal level simply refutes any effective measures to contain a pandemic because a) communities don't have borders and hence b) one community's tougher controls will have no effect when neighbouring community chooses lax measures.

Bernie hasn't begged his supporters to vote Biden ....yet.

That might have an effect on the outcome.

(Remember this time?)

But it is the journalist who informs the people of the facts, or at least should. — NOS4A2

A journalist is not a medical professional.

And the bureaucrat or group responsible of advising the political leadership ought to be. The journalist might ask from others in the scientific community to verify the claims of the bureaucrat, but still it's not him or her who decides what infectious disease merits more response than others.

I don’t think the analogy is accurate. Healthcare systems often vary from state to state. — NOS4A2

But tackling a pandemic isn't an ordinary health care issue. It simply isn't.

I think any citizen who was concerned about his health, given sufficient education, may avoid public gatherings without first being told to do so by some bureaucrat. I think the press, those whose job it is to inform the people, have more responsibility than a government. — NOS4A2

No, the health bureaucrat can tell if it really is ordinary flu or something more worse, if the information relies on medical facts.

It's not the journalist writing the article about that ought to decide if a new strain of a disease is more harmful than others.

I never said that. I only think a local government is better equipped to handle local problems than a central authority in the other side of the continent. — NOS4A2

But just like a war, it isn't a local problem. Would you have left the defence of Hawaii only to Hawaii when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? Minnesotan's wouldn't have had any worries about the Japanese in 1941.

It would be rather stupid for every local government to have their local version of the CDC to be on the lookout for pandemics. (And of course, Trump has been eager to slash the budget of the CDC btw)

When the framers drafted the Constitution they opposed giving the federal government much power over the states. I think we should try to maintain that as best we can. — NOS4A2

You really think everything is a states right issue? Everything seen from the states vs the federal authority juxtaposition? Of you feel that states rights, individual freedom etc. have to be mentioned here because otherwise combatting a pandemic might cause these freedoms to be diminished? :roll:

Dealing with a pandemic is a clear example of an international endeavor, actually. Starting with things like accurate information, having the ability track where the infections have come from.

International cooperation in fighting against a pandemic isn't a threat to states rights or individual freedoms.

I oppose Trump’s travel ban on the matter. I preferred what he was doing before: leaving it to the states to govern themselves. — NOS4A2

Ummm....the states? So 50 different approaches what to do? And how many borders? Especially when there's only a few without corona-virus cases?

This really is enough to highlight the inanity of the type of things NOS4A2 is saying. No doubt he will continue to say them anyway. — Baden

Your example also shows how much things have changed. And hence I'm in the camp that even if the corona-virus is a killer, it's not a killer like the Spanish flu. The numbers are unlikely in the ballpark of even the Hong Kong virus when it's over. My argument is:

a) Modern medicine. Antibiotics. Knowledge how to prevent pandemics.
b) International cooperation on the subject. We've learned a lot from past pandemics.
c) Information society: news spreads extremely quickly. People learn through the various media extremely quickly and know what to do.
d) Different attitudes. We don't take this as just a "nasty flu" and go on as if nothing as with ordinary influenzas.

NOS4A2 can bitch about government overkill on the issue, but that is what they do. They do put limitations on all of us, even if it's a tiny fraction of us that get the worst of the disease.

I would argue that the citizenry can do better to suppress the spread of the virus than a government. — NOS4A2

Especially with a pandemic, the actions of the citizenry make the difference. But you simply cannot avoid the fact that coordination is absolutely crucial. It's a team effort. Hence, you need a citizenry that will take the necessary precautions. Not eat garlic & vitamins and think that's the cure.

Btw, a question for everyone here:

Has the corona-virus epidemic effected your life yet?

My actual job is organizing training courses. Today the Finnish government came out with sets of instructions and limitations, for example the cancellation of big events. Hence my employer decided to cancel all courses until the end of May, so I guess I have more time to spend here on PF! Children are still going to school, although the politicians are debating if schools should stay open or not and if Finland should apply emergency powers legislation (which would be a first since WW2). The worst plunge in history of the local stock market happened here today (-10%), so there went part of my savings for some time. But oh well, stocks go up and down.

Nobody in the country has yet died of the virus and there has been 109 reported cases, 50 in the capital region, which all have been tracked to infections in foreign countries (mainly Northern Italy). The crucial event of a patient with an untraceable infection hasn't happened, as it has in Sweden. The estimate the high point of the pandemic is expected to be here in the summer.

How is it in your neighborhood?

I suspect that the obsequious manner with which people look to officials for assurance and lullabies indicates an authoritarian impulse that will in many cases justify the minimizing of freedom for the sake of security, as if we need governments to tell us to wash our hands and not to touch our faces. Let’s be careful what we wish for. — NOS4A2

That the "Hong Kong" virus killed about 34 000 - 100 000 in the US (and 1 million globally) and didn't cause such drastic measures than the corona-virus tells also something. I'm not sure if corona-virus will kill so many. But it wasn't such a huge thing in 1968-1968 as now.

Question is how much we do for one life saved. At least the economy seems no so important.

So, Artemis is bang on. The electability argument is going to look very foolish come November. — Baden

A lot can happen.

Yet I think what really will play for the Presidential candidate of the DNC is the oncoming coronavirus-recession.

Cutting international air travel is not in itself a bad idea of course. It isolates countries which makes national measure more effective. Whether this measure or any other makes sense depends on cost effectiveness. — Tobias

Yet just cutting flights doesn't do it.

Italy is a case example of how do this wrong: stopping direct flights simply made people to take other hubs. And then of course you cannot exactly know who has come from China, whereas with a direct flight from China you can inform the people what to do and what cautions to take. The most important thing is to get information to everyone and prepare for more serious outbreak and to start controls.

What I find at least as interesting is that Trump's travel ban fits discursively into a strategy he employs routinely, it is the fault of the other, in this case the Europeans. It is a very effective strategy of course, because it reinforces the belief of a special nation with good, clean people under threat of a dirty perverted outside world. — Tobias

And don't forget Trump's first response, it's the new hoax of the Democrats! America has tackled the coronavirus!

Trump just few days ago, joking as he does:



Trump now, reading the teleprompter:



Here you see perfectly the stages how Trump deals with matters. Ad hock, one could say.

Your description suggests there is a free market system and a command economy existing next to each other. I'm not sure whether you mean that. — Benkei

Perhaps it would be better to talk about "free market mechanism" than free market or free market system. That they are intertwined, sure, it can be so.

A good example is the real estate market. The prices are set by supple and demand, yet an official, city planner etc. can decide just to what purpose can the land be used, is it farmland or can you build a shopping center in the plot. Changes a lot the value of the real estate, yet the price you get is set by the market. (That is the government doesn't decide to buy it and defines the price)

I am not defending that the UK is late with restricting flights from CHina, just pointing out the UK is not part of the idiotic Schengen agreement, and not subject to the EUs insane migrant quotas. — Nobeernolife

Hence this has nothing to do with the corona-virus. Which is quite typical. Because that's what I get from Trump's response too.

Also what is very typical is the ignorance of the present. Europe really isn't the same as it was in 2016, but that naturally doesn't bother you at all. Notice that Greece closed it's borders from refugees from Turkey and the EU supported this. The EU has given money to Greece for it's border control and made a rapid response team ready to give support to Greece if needed. Everybody see's behind of this the manipulation of Erdogan after Turkish troops got killed in Syria by Russians.

But that of course doesn't fit into the Trumpian World view where only the courageous Brexiteers are taking care of their borders.

I know that, the person without beer seemingly didn't.

Fair enough. I think just have a slightly different emphasis or viewpoint.

Yet usually a modern "mixed economy" has at it's base a free market system and then a public sector. Not that the "free market" is an unofficial illegal black market. This point about mixed economies have to be understood especially when Americans think of European welfare states like Sweden (or Finland and Netherlands).

The point is actually important to understand especially when talking about modern social democracy and the agenda of politicians like Bernie Sanders. The agenda and objectives are nowhere close to a traditional Marxist-Leninist of the 20th Centur,y that was out there to do away with capitalism.

Any criticism seems to be TDS for you. Extremely typical.

Because what is the argument that the UK is taking care more of it's borders here? You answer that one.

UK didn't have travel bans or flight suspensions to China. Italy had them!

See Travel Restrictions on China due to COVID-19 for what the situation was some days ago.

The response to an epidemic is something more complex than just a ban, especially if then other measures aren't taken. Here you can see the differences how various governments cope with the situation.

No, a very obvious response, since the UK is controlling her borders, unlike the EU. — Nobeernolife

LOL!

Now that's a truly kneejerk response from a loyal Trump supporter!

No matter that the UK has more deaths now from the Corona-virus than a larger country like Germany which is partly considered epidemic area btw. And that England’s deputy chief medical officer has predicted “thousands” of cases of coronavirus in Britain during an “epidemic peak”.

Or that that the UK doesn't see any Trump-styled travel ban necessary...

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has said he doesn't see the need for Britain to introduce a US-style flying ban to tackle the spread of coronavirus. He told the BBC "the evidence here does not support that".

No, the kneejerk response is that UK after Brexit takes care more of her borders. :grin:

And anyway, the virus is already firmly in the US. (Seems like accusations of syndromes is the new vogue.)

A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate. — creativesoul

Elections are far away.

Don't confuse the charade of a political party picking it's candidate to actual elections.

So now to fight the "foreign virus", Trump put a travel ban on Europe, on foreign nationals.

Except the UK.

A Trumpian response.

Perhaps it should be said that Italy was the first country to ban flights from China, which made then people to circumvent the ban and fly from other countries. And now is the one worst inflicted areas in Europe (how bad we will know only afterward).

Ok, my bad.

The tone is sometimes hard to get through the internet.

(Especially when there are several anti-natalism threads on the forum.)

So Sanders lost Michigan. Now Joe can have his ice cream!

(My rules for staying out of poverty:

1) Don't have children
2) Don't get married.

It's that easy.) — Baden

Rather strange rules, Baden.

How about:

1) study in school and get an education
2) find work and work
3) if there aren't job opportunities in your neighborhood, move
4) save & invest

What is so wrong about being in a stable relationship and having children? It's being single that truly sucks, not having a spouse and offspring in your life.

The travel bans are now simply too late to have a big game changing effect (still helps a bit though). — boethius

Why do you say that? I do think they have a big game changing effect.

When has the pandemic started to spread out of control? Besides, it's obvious it is far less contagious than your average flu. Ireland has 24 cases, my country 40 cases whom all have gotten the virus outside the country (usually in Northern Italy). I don't think that the situation is lost and travel bans now are futile.

Oh, I know, that would conflict with conservative ideology, which is what this is obviously really about. — Baden

Is "Don't have children" then leftist ideology? I don't think it is.

Besides, people are having less children later, which I guess is understandable when both in the family usually study longer, both go to work and start a family later than their grandparents.

The number of "stairs" tells something similar how polygons start resembling a circle:



Your example shows well that the square root of 2 cannot be a rational number, I guess.

I'm certain that neither are many of your fellow Americans. But don't underestimate just how many feel privileged just having a job and a decent income.

I don't think so. Biden's aren't Biden's. Bernie's are Bernie's. — creativesoul

Campaign promises are indeed one thing. But one should notice what even Biden says about labor unions in his campaign.

Then the actual legislation that the politician has pushed through is something else to be looked upon. Promises are one thing, actual policy decisions another.

What's the point of the mention? — creativesoul

It's a great example of just how much the American workplace differs from others in this issue. And do notice that China naturally has it's one labour union, which is part of the government.

He's more of an imaginary God for those who peddle capitalism. — creativesoul

Well so is Marx for others. Yet both should be taken for what they truly say and meant, not what people just think they stand for as icons.

Good employers do not have nor need unions. Bad ones do. That's the whole point of them. They emerged for very good reason, and those reasons are now actual again. — creativesoul

I would disagree.

In a large workplace that workers use collective bargaining is I think totally reasonable. It's not about the employer being good or bad. It simply just makes sense. Above all, labor unions ought not to be thought as an ideological vehicle for the left, they can be totally unpolitical also. I've always given the example of the officer corps of the Finnish Armed Forces: 98% of all active officers belong to one labor union formed in 1918 and trust me, those guys genuinely aren't pinkos. Never have been and never will be.

(90th birthday ceremony of one Labor union. Notice that the union members are using their uniforms in the event. No red flags btw.)

And people use "Communist" to describe Sanders. Does not make it either true, nor sensible. Makes it propaganda. — creativesoul

And the term "fascist" is used as a similar derogative for right wing politicians. Yet I've tried to explain that there is a definition in economics to free markets, which I explained to Benkei above.

The point being that corporations are a structural effect on markets, just like monetary policy and what not. There isn't "just" demand and supply so talking about "free markets" is just an ideological term with no real content. — Benkei

Let's try to agree on the definitions.

Free market system is an economic system in which prices are determined by competition between businesses, supply and demand in the market. Prices are determined using the market mechanism. Do not confuse this with the theoretical term in economics of a perfect market. This also doesn't say anything about the role of the government, only that it doesn't interfere so much that there wouldn't be the market mechanism at all defining the prices, but the government (or another entity) just fixing the prices itself. Governments and public sector can have either a large or a little role, but that's beside the point to the definition. Or just how efficient and well working the markets are.

If you are thinking of the effects of actual large companies, well, that is then Oligopolistic competition, which in reality is the way global markets usually now tend to be formed. Yet even if oligopolies rule the World, they do it using the free market system.

Can sound callous, but perhaps in your European exemplar righteousness you don't notice how condescending you might sound when you say:

The liberty people think they're pursuing by resisting a government run solution to healthcare (which works as shown in many countries across the world) actually hurts a fair amount of people causing them to have the liberty to choose between paying a healthcare bill and becoming homeless. — Benkei

The liberty people? So your reason is that those Americans believing in liberty and small government are the cause of the problem and hence basically hurting others? Sounds like they are like those gun enthusiasts. No wait, they are the same Americans! Oh those terrible people!!!

I'll just follow a different path of thinking here. I think that the issue really is that enough people have to be at least somewhat OK and accept the present system for it to exist. If asked, they may not like it. Maw earlier is the perfect example. We know what he thinks about this, yet he himself says he's OK, because he is fortunate to have a good job. And there's services where he lives. Isn't that a huge issue for many: being fortunate to have a good job?

Let me put it another way: Is there something you don't like in your country, but you aren't willing to take up arms and man the barricades or simply move out of your country because of it? I think there might be something like that which annoys you.

Perhaps the reason is that even if the problem is annoying, it isn't totally unbearable.