London is HORRIBLE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course its not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

DP. Medicare/Medicaid delivered the hospital bed and oxygen tank to my mom's home for free too, when she went into home hospice. And after she died they picked it up within a few days, too, for free. Medicaid does this for anybody in hospice care, and you don't have to be low-income/assets or 65+, you just need a doctor to say you have 6 months or less to live.

Look, I too think the US system sucks, mainly because so many have bad insurance. But if you're going to plug the NHS, give us some real examples, not hospital beds. How was the cancer treatment before your family member died?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never want to hear people say how great London is or London is better than dc.

1. Housing is atrocious. We are living in a roughly 2 million pound flat in Mayfair and the plumbing is awful, the insulation/windows are awful and we are always cold (and we are used to Montana cold but homes in London are cold whereas in the us homes stay warm). Our colleagues here have homes anywhere between 500k to 6 million pounds here in various neighborhoods and they are all dumpy

2. The parks are overrated

3. People are mean

4. The tube and trains are mindblowingly expensive

5. Service is poor

6. British “professionals” have horrible work ethic without the “la dolce vita” attitude of Italians/southern euros. It’s the worst of both worlds - uptight, high expectations yet also poor work ethic/quality.

7. Food is awful

8. Social life is way too alcohol centric

There is literally nothing redeeming about this place. I’d rather live in Dallas and I think the south is 🤮 !


dc is 100x better than London

If I hated it as much as you do I would figure out a way to move. Life is too short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a complex relationship with London. I lived there in the 1990s and a again for a few years in the early 2000s and loved it. These days it's changed so much, some for the better and others in just different ways. The mass migration means it's really no longer a British city it was 30 years ago. The demographic changes are staggering and I don't think I've see any other place undergo the same scale of population changes. So the neighborhoods I once loved aren't the same any more, they're either colonized by the very rich and boring, like Mayfair and Kensington, or well, just not British any more.

On the other hand, it is safer and cleaner. Massive gentrification has cleaned up large parts of London but it's also meant London is extremely unaffordable.

It's always been very expensive. And it's always been a widely criticized city for lack of charm. But the museums are still excellent, if a bit woke these days. The shopping can be great. Dining out is more expensive than it's worth it but my friends still in London are excellent cooks and have access to excellent ingredients.

I don't have much of a desire to revisit London for longer than a day or two to see old friends before going elsewhere. London is the one place that makes me feel "no country for old men." But I readily recognize that for others it's still a thriving and fascinating city.

in what universe is london 'widely criticized for lack of charm'???
it is one of the most charming big cities there is.
i could understand if you said frankfurt/ dresden/ riyadh/ lagos/ akron/ birmingham/ indianapolis or the entirety of new jersey. but LONDON is widely criticized for lack of charm? plz

It's not the prettiest city. There's no shortage of travel accounts of the lack of charm or poor food or pollution in London going back centuries. Even John Adams complained about the food in London in the 18th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We sold our lovely flat in London and fled to the countryside. The good years in London were fab. But it’s over now.

But you probably voted for Labour and support the EU and unending migration... and now want to leave the fruits of your labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE London. Chic, great shopping, great fun vibe. People are mean as sh*t in a very polite way. It's actually kind of weird. British food is disgusting, but there are so many other options! Love the place. Would move in a minute.

Eat Indian subcontinent food there. That is the only decent and affordable food there.

BTW - England became a developed nation because of how they looted 45 trillion dollars worth of materials from India during their colonial rule.

Without India to loot, they have become a shithole country. A small country of shopkeepers. And the poverty there is another level now. Unwashed brits with yellow teeth, unwashed clothes and dirty fingernails, unable to afford air-conditioning and eating baked beans from a can.

Flat out wrong.

The vast majority of the wealth in 19th century Britain was from the domestic market. It was the *first* country to undergo the industrial revolution. Far more wealth came out of the coal mines and canals and mills and shipping of Northern Britain than out of India or any other colonies. The colonial trade was lucrative to an extent but the scale of wealth you imagine flowing to Britain at the expense of the colonies never existed. Britain tried to make India a consumer market for British goods and to an extent did suppress, or rather, not foster the growth of Indian industries, but we're talking about peanuts. Most colonies were a net drain on Britain, including India. They were the luxury symbols of the time.

The sugar colonies of the West Indies were much more lucrative for the British coffers and money used to fund the Napoleonic wars. But the Indian obsession is largely a "what if" myth invented by Indian nationalists based on the weak argument that if Britain had not been in India somehow that subcontinent of warring fiefdoms and kingdoms and decaying Mughal empires and sharp sectarian divides between Hindus and Muslims would have peacefully united and transformed itself into an industrial power (without the technological knowledge or even raw resources of northern Europe of the time). It's a nice fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...The mass migration means it's really no longer a British city it was 30 years ago. The demographic changes are staggering...just not British any more.

But the museums are still excellent, if a bit woke these days....

Come on, say what you really mean. You know you want to say it. It's only 14 words.

What do you want me to say? That large scale migration of non-native British people have changed the character of the city? Absolutely. It's neither here nor there because it is what it is and it also means it's not the London of the past. It's taken on a different history.

As for the 14 words what are they?

Okay, I am gonna assume a little good faith here- the tone of your post sounded a bit like racist dog whistling, but sounds like it's more just like you are commenting on the change, not bemoaning it, per se. I would argue that big cities like London, Paris, NYC are always in flux, and that if you go back through history there are constant waves of migration (not always international, London saw huge numbers of people from northern England, Scotland and Ireland (which was the same nation then!) in the 1800s), and there have been constant worries of "these new people are overwhelming us". It's the nature of things in big economically strong cities.

You can also bemoan the dislocation of a native people without being racist. You can prefer that people be able to enjoy their homeland. I'm sure that given the chance, you would find a European influx equal to 60%+ of the population in an African, Indian or Chinese city to be unacceptable (at least that's what college classes on imperialism say).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE London. Chic, great shopping, great fun vibe. People are mean as sh*t in a very polite way. It's actually kind of weird. British food is disgusting, but there are so many other options! Love the place. Would move in a minute.

Eat Indian subcontinent food there. That is the only decent and affordable food there.

BTW - England became a developed nation because of how they looted 45 trillion dollars worth of materials from India during their colonial rule.

Without India to loot, they have become a shithole country. A small country of shopkeepers. And the poverty there is another level now. Unwashed brits with yellow teeth, unwashed clothes and dirty fingernails, unable to afford air-conditioning and eating baked beans from a can.

Let me guess, you watched a YouTube video. The 45 trillion figure floating around on social media (what a joke) is based on England displacing the Indian textile industry, because England mechanized and India could no longer compete with handlooms. They did not take 45 trillion dollars worth of goods. Nor is outcompeting a country "stealing" from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE London. Chic, great shopping, great fun vibe. People are mean as sh*t in a very polite way. It's actually kind of weird. British food is disgusting, but there are so many other options! Love the place. Would move in a minute.

Eat Indian subcontinent food there. That is the only decent and affordable food there.

BTW - England became a developed nation because of how they looted 45 trillion dollars worth of materials from India during their colonial rule.

Without India to loot, they have become a shithole country. A small country of shopkeepers. And the poverty there is another level now. Unwashed brits with yellow teeth, unwashed clothes and dirty fingernails, unable to afford air-conditioning and eating baked beans from a can.

What do you mean Donald? I didn’t see any of that in London last year.

america has stolen billions from iraq and afghanistan alone in the past few years, up to and including 2022.

and data shows americans have worse dental health and fewer teeth than the brits - https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6543

'The oral health of US citizens is not better than the English, and there are consistently wider educational and income oral health inequalities in the US compared with England.'

This person just has so little understanding of history, public health, statistics and education that you just can't even respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE London. Chic, great shopping, great fun vibe. People are mean as sh*t in a very polite way. It's actually kind of weird. British food is disgusting, but there are so many other options! Love the place. Would move in a minute.

Eat Indian subcontinent food there. That is the only decent and affordable food there.

BTW - England became a developed nation because of how they looted 45 trillion dollars worth of materials from India during their colonial rule.

Without India to loot, they have become a shithole country. A small country of shopkeepers. And the poverty there is another level now. Unwashed brits with yellow teeth, unwashed clothes and dirty fingernails, unable to afford air-conditioning and eating baked beans from a can.

Flat out wrong.

The vast majority of the wealth in 19th century Britain was from the domestic market. It was the *first* country to undergo the industrial revolution. Far more wealth came out of the coal mines and canals and mills and shipping of Northern Britain than out of India or any other colonies. The colonial trade was lucrative to an extent but the scale of wealth you imagine flowing to Britain at the expense of the colonies never existed. Britain tried to make India a consumer market for British goods and to an extent did suppress, or rather, not foster the growth of Indian industries, but we're talking about peanuts. Most colonies were a net drain on Britain, including India. They were the luxury symbols of the time.

The sugar colonies of the West Indies were much more lucrative for the British coffers and money used to fund the Napoleonic wars. But the Indian obsession is largely a "what if" myth invented by Indian nationalists based on the weak argument that if Britain had not been in India somehow that subcontinent of warring fiefdoms and kingdoms and decaying Mughal empires and sharp sectarian divides between Hindus and Muslims would have peacefully united and transformed itself into an industrial power (without the technological knowledge or even raw resources of northern Europe of the time). It's a nice fantasy.

DP nice monologue however your POV is hogwash. Wealth from it's own domestic market?! LOL
Wealth came from conquests and pillaging
A quote from historicengland.co.uk
"Between 1640 and 1807, it is estimated that Britain transported 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries.Wealth from the direct trade in enslaved people, from plantations and later from the compensation awarded following the abolition of slavery, was invested in Britain"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

DP. Medicare/Medicaid delivered the hospital bed and oxygen tank to my mom's home for free too, when she went into home hospice. And after she died they picked it up within a few days, too, for free. Medicaid does this for anybody in hospice care, and you don't have to be low-income/assets or 65+, you just need a doctor to say you have 6 months or less to live.

Look, I too think the US system sucks, mainly because so many have bad insurance. But if you're going to plug the NHS, give us some real examples, not hospital beds. How was the cancer treatment before your family member died?

dp.. the difference is that medicare and medicaid are not universal healthcare. NHS is universal healthcare.

My cousin died of cancer in the US because they had no insurance.

If you have good insurance in the US, it's great. The problem is that there are millions who either don't have insurance or are under insured. Many are on high deductible plans, so they don't even go to the doctor unless it's an emergency.

Why does a medication here cost so much more compared to the UK or even in Europe? I looked into getting my DC's inhaler prescribed in the UK because it's like $15, compared to $80 here. It's ridiculous. They get it from the same manufacturer. I once had to get the inhaler in Spain, and it cost me like $10. I looked at the inhaler and compared it to the one we got from the US, and it was the exact same.

Why is a thread about London now about the NHS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...The mass migration means it's really no longer a British city it was 30 years ago. The demographic changes are staggering...just not British any more.

But the museums are still excellent, if a bit woke these days....

Come on, say what you really mean. You know you want to say it. It's only 14 words.

What do you want me to say? That large scale migration of non-native British people have changed the character of the city? Absolutely. It's neither here nor there because it is what it is and it also means it's not the London of the past. It's taken on a different history.

As for the 14 words what are they?

Okay, I am gonna assume a little good faith here- the tone of your post sounded a bit like racist dog whistling, but sounds like it's more just like you are commenting on the change, not bemoaning it, per se. I would argue that big cities like London, Paris, NYC are always in flux, and that if you go back through history there are constant waves of migration (not always international, London saw huge numbers of people from northern England, Scotland and Ireland (which was the same nation then!) in the 1800s), and there have been constant worries of "these new people are overwhelming us". It's the nature of things in big economically strong cities.

You can also bemoan the dislocation of a native people without being racist. You can prefer that people be able to enjoy their homeland. I'm sure that given the chance, you would find a European influx equal to 60%+ of the population in an African, Indian or Chinese city to be unacceptable (at least that's what college classes on imperialism say).

“You can prefer that people be able to enjoy their homeland”? Do you think that London was invaded and the locals were somehow forced out? How are the non-native born stopping others from enjoying London?

I’m no fan of large scale rapid migration but the way you have framed this definitely smacks of racism given the parallel you drew. For the record, 20 percent of NHS staff are now foreign born so I think the presence of non-native born is definitely necessary and appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

DP. Medicare/Medicaid delivered the hospital bed and oxygen tank to my mom's home for free too, when she went into home hospice. And after she died they picked it up within a few days, too, for free. Medicaid does this for anybody in hospice care, and you don't have to be low-income/assets or 65+, you just need a doctor to say you have 6 months or less to live.

Look, I too think the US system sucks, mainly because so many have bad insurance. But if you're going to plug the NHS, give us some real examples, not hospital beds. How was the cancer treatment before your family member died?

dp.. the difference is that medicare and medicaid are not universal healthcare. NHS is universal healthcare.

My cousin died of cancer in the US because they had no insurance.

If you have good insurance in the US, it's great. The problem is that there are millions who either don't have insurance or are under insured. Many are on high deductible plans, so they don't even go to the doctor unless it's an emergency.

Why does a medication here cost so much more compared to the UK or even in Europe? I looked into getting my DC's inhaler prescribed in the UK because it's like $15, compared to $80 here. It's ridiculous. They get it from the same manufacturer. I once had to get the inhaler in Spain, and it cost me like $10. I looked at the inhaler and compared it to the one we got from the US, and it was the exact same.

Why is a thread about London now about the NHS?

The thing is, I literally don’t know one person amongst my friends, family, extended family, in laws, neighbors, grad school friends - who does not have health insurance. Ever. The claim that we need a socialized health care system on top of a employer sponsored one is narrow minded. The drugs you received were cheap bc they are subsidized and contracted by the government. Cool. Do you want to pay 45% in income tax to get a discount on your drugs? Additionally doctors in UK used to advise me to go back to the US and get a particular treatment, bc the UK lags behind the latest innovations and drugs by something like 5-10 years. Meaning, even with my ultra rich private insurance in the UK, I could not access the treatment, bc it was not permitted by the UK government. So, just be careful what you ask for.