UK, Italy, France quality decline, now poorer than all 50 states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

This is actually an excellent lifestyle if you’re not an obese, lazy, wasteful $hit. Sorry it wouldn’t work for you.

Well I’m none of those things and try to bike whenever possible. But I absolutely love my large, nice home and new, safe cars. I try to look for the positive in things and as an American I greatly appreciate having so much space, land and the ability to live in such a nice home.

That’s great for you but do you understand not everyone wants a large home? I moved from a small house in a bustling vibrant part of London to a house which was twice the size in Bethesda. I was happier in London. I found even the inner suburbs of Bethesda quiet, boring and a bit lonely. Not everyone thrives on the same things. It feels like lots of posters here are insisting everyone values the same things when that’s obviously not the case.

This is really the essence, right here.

Actually all humans want more space. It’s human nature. It’s simply a left wing talking point that living in a tiny flat is preferable. Every European buys the most space that they can for the location. The British are living in tiny old houses because that’s what’s available and all they can afford.

Why do you think many people choose to live in smaller, more expensive inner city places? It bemuses me that you don’t get that people have different priorities. While I loved living in London. I actually grew up in a large suburban house in another country. It would make DH laugh to hear me described as left wing. Why would my political leanings have any bearing on this?

Because of the location. But they’d absolutely own a larger, nicer apartment in that inner city location, if financially possible.

But they would STILL rather have the smaller city apartment (even if it’s the largest apartment they can find/afford) than your massive McMansion in the ‘burbs.

How are you not getting this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

This is actually an excellent lifestyle if you’re not an obese, lazy, wasteful $hit. Sorry it wouldn’t work for you.

Well I’m none of those things and try to bike whenever possible. But I absolutely love my large, nice home and new, safe cars. I try to look for the positive in things and as an American I greatly appreciate having so much space, land and the ability to live in such a nice home.

That’s great for you but do you understand not everyone wants a large home? I moved from a small house in a bustling vibrant part of London to a house which was twice the size in Bethesda. I was happier in London. I found even the inner suburbs of Bethesda quiet, boring and a bit lonely. Not everyone thrives on the same things. It feels like lots of posters here are insisting everyone values the same things when that’s obviously not the case.

This is really the essence, right here.

Actually all humans want more space. It’s human nature. It’s simply a left wing talking point that living in a tiny flat is preferable. Every European buys the most space that they can for the location. The British are living in tiny old houses because that’s what’s available and all they can afford.

Why do you think many people choose to live in smaller, more expensive inner city places? It bemuses me that you don’t get that people have different priorities. While I loved living in London. I actually grew up in a large suburban house in another country. It would make DH laugh to hear me described as left wing. Why would my political leanings have any bearing on this?

Because of the location. But they’d absolutely own a larger, nicer apartment in that inner city location, if financially possible.

But they would STILL rather have the smaller city apartment (even if it’s the largest apartment they can find/afford) than your massive McMansion in the ‘burbs.

How are you not getting this?

If we are talking about London, it's a peculiar case. Central London is dominated by three demographics: 1) global rich, 2) students, and 3) immigrants in social housing. Central London is really a rich man's playground. The middle and UMC now commute in from outer zones and the home counties. And London is a massive employment machine with the highest salaries, people live there and put up with long commutes because they have to. The concentration of jobs and salaries in London is massively disproportionate for the country.

A lot of people still move out for space and schools. Just like what they do in the US. I knew several families where dad worked in London and lived in a small flat three days a week and family was out in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather live in any of those places than here. The universal healthcare alone would be a relief.

Exactly.

a relief from what, available heatlhcare and quality? Yes it may be expensive but remember we make like twice the amount of europe and its doesn't cost as much comapred to the taxes on income.

? The amount we pay in premiums + deductible is about $20K for a family of 3 in the US.

I guess we need to make more to pay for the outrageous healthcare and college costs.

Our UMC friends in the UK don't have to worry about paying for health care costs or college that much. Sure, we may have more than them, but we worry more about paying for medical care. They are able to retire early and not worry about health insurance. We are forced to work longer just for the health insurance.

We're seriously thinking of living there for a few years before I qualify for medicare (spouse is a dual citizen). ACA premiums for a 60 yr old hdp is about $1000/month.

We did a cost comparison with our friends in the UK, and we pay a lot more than they do overall.

Our UK tax bracket would be 20%. There is no joint filing in the UK.

So, if each of us have an income of $65k (ish), we each get taxed 20% (13K). That tax amount (13k) ends up being lower than the expected healthcare costs of a 60 yr old person in the US.

So, yes, the UK is cheaper when you factor in how expensive healthcare is in the US.

I work for a f500 and do not pay anywhere close to 20k a year for healthcare. The numbers you're quoting is more for self employed people buying their own insurance. I did Google this and it seems like the average family of 4 pays between 6-7k and year with the employer covering the rest.

The average UK student graduates from university with a higher debt than the average American graduate. Google says it's 53,000 pounds, or $71k. The average college debt in the US is $43k. And starting salaries for college grads in the US is a lot higher.

So be careful when cherry picking your examples.

Americans have to work until 65 so they don't have to pay $20K/year on healthcare.

Also, not all employers in the US pay for health insurance. As a matter of fact, about 15% to 20% of the population had zero health insurance before ACA. These were not all self employed people. And now, of course, thanks to Rs, many have lost their ACA insurance.

Americans have less college debt in part because we the taxpayers bail them out, and some of the colleges here are rich. But, it's not about debt. It's about how much we are paying for college here compared to the UK.

I recall a French person on this forum saying that they like how they can make more money here, and their private insurance here is great, but if they lost their job due to illness they'd probably move back to France. The majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical reasons. That's unheard of in Europe.

America is a great place to make money, not have a quality of life. We have less leave, vacation, more pesticides in our food, more big corp money involved in our everyday of life - food, politics, etc.. It's insidious.

Glass is half full or half empty, eh?

Average age of retirement in UK is 65, same with Germany. So seems like a moot point.

I lived in the UK for years and in an UMC world. You're spinning a scenario that isn't typical. What I saw was people working long hours, with long commutes, with pleasant but not extravagant lives, and constant money worries especially affording good housing and school fees for children. Most also had some kind of private insurance access.

Contrary to what another poster idealized on here, administrators or national health care systems aren't focused on the best possible care but stretching out a reasonable standard of care among a bigger and bigger population (FYI health care expenditures are also soaring in UK, funding the NHS and where the money actually goes is a perennial political football topic, complaints about a bloated bureaucracy, controlling costs and unaccountability are widespread).

I am sure we can all agree Denmark and similar countries are winners, but they are also small, highly homogenous, wealthy, in other words, they have it easier.

Add tiny, badly insulated homes. Although I get many people on here dream of cramming a family of four into a small house in Europe and driving an overpriced hatchback.

The ability to own a large, comfortable home and drive large, comfortable cars is something many liberals detest, but unfortunately really does make a huge difference in your QOL.

The tiny house/flat and daily grocery runs are romanticized on the internet.

Instead I see my friends barely scraping by to pay for a very small and unimpressive home and going to BS jobs that pay 50% the salary they would here. They just shop frequently because they don’t have room in their tiny house and fridge. Then taking multiple kids on public transport in the rain. Yes living the dream. Thank god they aren’t living in a McMansion in Dallas.

This is actually an excellent lifestyle if you’re not an obese, lazy, wasteful $hit. Sorry it wouldn’t work for you.

Well I’m none of those things and try to bike whenever possible. But I absolutely love my large, nice home and new, safe cars. I try to look for the positive in things and as an American I greatly appreciate having so much space, land and the ability to live in such a nice home.

That’s great for you but do you understand not everyone wants a large home? I moved from a small house in a bustling vibrant part of London to a house which was twice the size in Bethesda. I was happier in London. I found even the inner suburbs of Bethesda quiet, boring and a bit lonely. Not everyone thrives on the same things. It feels like lots of posters here are insisting everyone values the same things when that’s obviously not the case.

This is really the essence, right here.

Actually all humans want more space. It’s human nature. It’s simply a left wing talking point that living in a tiny flat is preferable. Every European buys the most space that they can for the location they choose to live. The British are living in tiny old houses because that’s what’s available and all they can afford.

Hope the bolded helps you discover the extremely obvious point that you are missing.

+1 PP is someone who wasn't taught propertly in kindergarten that people have different preferences. Not everyone wants a 6000 square foot McMansion. Many of us spend our time OUTSIDE our homes, and don't want to deal with the hassle of maintenance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we are talking about London, it's a peculiar case. Central London is dominated by three demographics: 1) global rich, 2) students, and 3) immigrants in social housing. Central London is really a rich man's playground. The middle and UMC now commute in from outer zones and the home counties. And London is a massive employment machine with the highest salaries, people live there and put up with long commutes because they have to. The concentration of jobs and salaries in London is massively disproportionate for the country.

A lot of people still move out for space and schools. Just like what they do in the US. I knew several families where dad worked in London and lived in a small flat three days a week and family was out in the country.

This is about right. I was a college student in London.

Faculty mainly lived in Kent and commutes by train, because of good schools in Kent. Exceptions were primarily if a professor were married to a banker, then they seemed to live on the west side of greater London.

There have been efforts to move some government agencies/offices outside London (Forestry was moved to Scotland) and the BBC has been pressured to move several bits to Greater Manchester (greatly resisted by the impacted staff). Still, a huge swath of jobs are in London. Even more if one counts the jobs concentrated in the Thames Valley (along GWR mainline from Paddington out towards Gloucester).

London jobs are as if we had a combination of central government jobs (think DC) and Wall St jobs (think southern Manhatten) all in one place.

[Anonymous]

UK NHS is great for routine MD visits and for A&E. However, it has long queues (over a year is not so unusual) for a good sized list of medical procedures.

I likely would be dead if my heart issue had arisen while under NHS care -- and UK colleagues all agree -- because of a long queue (12+ months at that time) to get the needed heart procedure. By contrast, in the US I was able to get the needed heart MRI and other needed tests completed in a few weeks, then get the needed heart procedure completed within 2 months of the original incident. Waiting 12+ months for that procedure, my likely outcome was death.

What some UK colleagues do to work around the long queues when needed is to go private (outside NHS) -- curiously often with identical hospitals and providers. They have to pay through the nose when they do this. Medical debt is an issue there as well as here being one result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we are talking about London, it's a peculiar case. Central London is dominated by three demographics: 1) global rich, 2) students, and 3) immigrants in social housing. Central London is really a rich man's playground. The middle and UMC now commute in from outer zones and the home counties. And London is a massive employment machine with the highest salaries, people live there and put up with long commutes because they have to. The concentration of jobs and salaries in London is massively disproportionate for the country.

A lot of people still move out for space and schools. Just like what they do in the US. I knew several families where dad worked in London and lived in a small flat three days a week and family was out in the country.

This is about right. I was a college student in London.

Faculty mainly lived in Kent and commutes by train, because of good schools in Kent. Exceptions were primarily if a professor were married to a banker, then they seemed to live on the west side of greater London.

There have been efforts to move some government agencies/offices outside London (Forestry was moved to Scotland) and the BBC has been pressured to move several bits to Greater Manchester (greatly resisted by the impacted staff). Still, a huge swath of jobs are in London. Even more if one counts the jobs concentrated in the Thames Valley (along GWR mainline from Paddington out towards Gloucester).

London jobs are as if we had a combination of central government jobs (think DC) and Wall St jobs (think southern Manhatten) all in one place.

I have a bunch of friends in London who live a 5 minute walk from a tube stop in Brixton, Balham, East London, etc. Their commutes are very manageable. Some are civil servants so not high earners. A key differentiator is, like in so many places in different countries, many of them bought their properties more than 15 years ago when they were much more affordable. It’s the same here in Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UK NHS is great for routine MD visits and for A&E. However, it has long queues (over a year is not so unusual) for a good sized list of medical procedures.

I likely would be dead if my heart issue had arisen while under NHS care -- and UK colleagues all agree -- because of a long queue (12+ months at that time) to get the needed heart procedure. By contrast, in the US I was able to get the needed heart MRI and other needed tests completed in a few weeks, then get the needed heart procedure completed within 2 months of the original incident. Waiting 12+ months for that procedure, my likely outcome was death.

What some UK colleagues do to work around the long queues when needed is to go private (outside NHS) -- curiously often with identical hospitals and providers. They have to pay through the nose when they do this. Medical debt is an issue there as well as here being one result.

NHS can be great but often not for non-urgent or non-critical care. I think it’s good to have those who can afford it taking out private insurance or paying privately. It relieves some of the pressure on the public system. That is kind of the Australian model.

I had both of my children under the NHS. It was great and I didn’t pay a cent. When my daughter was diagnosed with a kidney issue, she was immediately referred to a specialist at Evelina Hospital, probably the best pediatric hospital in the UK. When my son developed an egg allergy, he was immediately referred to Dr Adam Fox, one of the best pediatric allergists. This was about 15 years ago. But if you need a knee replacement, I imagine you could be waiting for years.