If part of the US, the UK would be 2nd poorest state

Even though things are hard here I don't believe that report. It has Sweden as below Michigan. Wth, Sweden is one of the richest places and one of the best to live.

Things are different here. You can buy a Big Mac for 99c and we pay £2.99 but the 20% tax pays for our health care. The price you pay for a Prius is about one third less than we pay but that difference again is used for health care. I'd rather that than have friends of mine die because they can't afford insurance.

What's your minimum wage? What's your average wage? What's your life expectancy compared to all those European countries? lol. America is great if you're in the top 10% and not if you're in the bottom 25%.

Nah, it's just an article to make you guys feel happy and smug about your country. Despite the problems in Europe you won't find people falling over themselves to move to the US. They move to Australia or Canada or New Zealand etc. Why's that then?

 

We need more to distance us from Alabama

 

I've been to the EU, including the UK.

Weather notwithstanding, I prefer it here.

I do have to agree with Grumpy though. The article is nothing but fertilizer.....not worthy of lining a paper tray to put fish and chips in.

 

Oh Shit
I just subscribed to the WP for a year. If the OP link is any indication of quality I just wasted $29 USD
In fact, a newspaper that links to the 'Spectator' has just about written 'right wing propaganda' on it's forehead.

 

Thanks for the post.

Given that it's based on GDP (PPP) (which the article goes to extraordinary lengths to explain for the hard-of-thinking), I would think it's skewed by Britain's very high property prices and America's extraordinarily low property prices.

But the bit I really don't get is this:

“Nelson wrote that the United Kingdom’s low ranking showed Britain had “no reason to feel smug” about recent events in Ferguson, Mo.:

"The United States may be a great place to be rich, we like to think, but they treat their deprived appallingly over there. We tend to watch reports from poorer American states with a shudder, thankful that our country is run along different, more compassionate lines.

But if Britain were to somehow leave the European union and become the 51st state of America, we would actually be one of the poor states.""​

Ummm....... what? How on earth did he make the leap between these two issues? One relates to inequality and racism, the other to average per-capita GDP on a PPP basis. It's like saying "British people might think eating apples is healthy, but the average engine size of their cars is less than ours, so that proves that they're wrong."

 

I had to laugh when I saw Alaska at the top. Take away the 3 big oil companies (that barely trickle down) and watch what happens LOL
The article should be retitled as "the top 0.001% of Americans are REALLY REALLY REALLY RICH."

The bottom 95% ? Fighting over health insurance, and too poorly educated to realize that use of the arithmetic average for this sort of question is just propaganda.

 

I'd have much more respect for it if it were good propaganda. But it's full of such absurd arguments that it's embarrassing.

That's no criticism of Chuck - I'm glad he posted it. It's the author who deserves the opprobrium.

 

I had no input on this article.

 

I do not think you can compare a Nation like the UK to any one of the USA States... for one, all of the USA States recieve Federal aid and have some reliance on a Federal Military for defence of our borders and interests overseas, as well as a plethora of program coins for everything under the sun, or under the ground... UK must rely upon itself for that... as well as the welfare they copiously dole out to folks on their lands...

That being said... I still like living in the USA... much more than being in the UK... which I will admit, I have only visited when I was a younger man in the military.

 

And if Scotland splits, I'll give you two guesses how many extra pence each brit will be the richer.

 

But your output would be worth reading.

 

As someone born and brought up in England, but with Scottish parents, (and who now lives on the other side of the world) I'm terribly conflicted on this. My parents are both very Scottish, but live in England. My Mum is definitely an expat nationalist, but Dad isn't (mind you, although he was born in Scotland, he's from an Italian-Irish family, so that's part of the reason). My sister feels English, but I'd always describe myself as British.

Fifteen years ago, I'd have said there was a very strong argument for Scottish independence, but I think that it's been heavily diluted by the success of devolution. While there's always an emotional argument for independence, the fiscal argument is weaker than it used to be. The argument is - and remains - that Scotland is a long, long way to the left of England. There's a general opinion that Scots are willing to pay higher taxes in return for completely free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and tertiary education, while the English prefer slightly lower taxes and are willing to accept university tuition fees and free healthcare but a fee for prescriptions. There are other things too, but that's the core. Devolution has already given the Scottish government a degree of leeway to accommodate these desires, and Devo Max (the option that is not independence) will give it even more.

The thing that horrifies me about Scottish independence is that it will mean that England will be stuck with a Conservative government for the foreseeable future.

The one factor which could still argue in favour of Scottish independence, as I see it, is an unknown. The Conservatives are promising the British (whoever they might be at the time) a referendum on whether to leave the EU some time during the next parliament. It looks likely at the moment that the English will be sucked in by UKIP propaganda and will vote to leave the EU, but the Scots won't. EU membership is very much in Scotland's interest (and England's, but they don't seem to realise it). If it's likely that a Scotland that was part of the UK would have to leave the EU, Scotland would be better leaving the UK, rejoining the EU, and negotiating an FTA with Rump UK.

The whole thing might leave me with three passports, which will be interesting.

 

I'm actually use to this being the standard use of GDP. A statistic being used to generate a statistic is usually mathematically senseless...but this was for entertainment.

 

Even within the EU the UK ranks as the 5th or 6th poorest state. Their financial industry was hit hard by the great recession.

Sadly lots of people die in UK healthcare too, sometimes while sitting in a waiting room, or at home because they've been placed on a waiting list. Too many people and not enough money to help all of them. So your system has not eliminated the flaws. (And by the way, nobody gets turned-away in the US because hospitals are required by law to provide free care to the indigent. It comes out of their corporate treasuries.)

 

Well, you got one thing right, which is good. Britain got hit very hard by the recession. Britain caused the recession as a result of its slavish devotion to the free market and its subsequent stupid deregulation of the financial sector.

However....

There are 27 countries in the EU.

IMF GDP (PPP) rankings (since that's what we seem to be using) place eight EU states ahead of the UK. That would make Britain the ninth-richest country (by this metric) in the EU, or the 18th-poorest.

Read my many, many other posts on this. I find it incredible that proponents of private healthcare think that State healthcare can be limited by money being finite by private healthcare somehow cannot.

 

TH,
In the US, hospitals that accept Medicare are required to assess, stabilize, and give emergency treatment regardless of payor. The hospitals then hound the non-insured patients for payment, from my experience to the limit of their legal means and destroying the patient's credit along the way.

That is FAR from a carte blanche to free care for anybody, indigent or otherwise.
One recent example: An indigent patient came to the ER where I work with abdominal pain. His evaluation found a mass, very likely cancer. Since no medical emergency was present he was discharged home. The hospital is not obligated to reach a definite diagnosis; and had a diagnosis of cancer already been made, the hospital is not obligated to treat at this time.

Are you following ? When this patient develops complications from cancer, the hospital will admit. Specific cancer treatment will be too late, and terminal care will again be non-emergent.

Pardon my saying so, but compared to US medical care you are downright knowledgeable about cars.

 

Yeah, but on the bright side .... ummmm ..... you've got ...... errr ...... oh, yes, FREEDOM.