Are solar panel installs now free ?

[JohnW2]

Sadly, I can report from personal experience that the USA has excellent healthcare facilities. Far from free though. I left hospital with a prescription for 3 items, which cost me over $700 for a month's supply. I saw some of the invoices on their way to my insurers, and the costs were shocking. Luckily I was working, so covered by the company travel insurance.

Indeed - but the cost of medicines obtained by 'private prescription' in the UK can be almost as shocking, particularly for 'modern' or highly specialised medicines.

Many people in the UK get a nasty surprise if/when they discover that (as is often the case) their private healthcare insurance doesn't cover 'outpatient prescriptions', or even 'take-home' medicines (like yours) on leaving hospital - which can often result in unexpected costs of £000s.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

My GP used to refuse to prescribe anything that was cheaper to buy than the prescription charge.

Yes, sensible/thoughtful doctors will do that. However, there was once quite a fuss about doctors doing it, on the grounds that it was "doing the NHS out of income", but I think that nonsense eventually blew away!

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Indeed. But we don't have millions of people with virtually no access to healthcare.

We could argue the merits of the different systems of implementation, but health care itself is second to none in the U.S. And we could mention the ridiculous NHS waiting lists in some cases, or that treatments available for certain conditions in one NHS area are refused in another. I'm not sure that the present condition of the British NHS presents, overall, any better picture. There are also programs here for those without private insurance to cover essential medical needs; my wife works for a private company which arranges doctors, nurses, drug prescriptions and other related services for Medi-Cal, the state-run program for those on low incomes.

Indeed #2.

But what happened after that?

The government introduced more firearms restrictions. Just like they did after the Hungerford incident a few years earlier when, if I recall correctly, it was stated that the new laws would "prevent anything like this from ever happening again." But as we're getting way off the topic. I'll not be pursuing that.

 

[JohnD]

...health care itself is second to none in the U.S...

....for those who can afford it.

Neonatal mortality, for example, is at third-world standards.

Cuba has better healthcare outcomes than the US.

The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, but get worse results than Western Europe or even Eastern Europe.

I have never heard of a British person going bankrupt due to medical bills, but I am told it is the largest cause of personal bankruptcies in the US.

There are some powerful vested interests very anxious to prevent US citizens getting a public scheme.

 

[JohnW2]

Cuba has better healthcare outcomes than the US.

It does - but to be fair, Cuba is exceptional, having a better healthcare system, and better healthcare outcomes, than many/most countries in the world - quite possibly including the UK.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sadly, I can report from personal experience that the USA has excellent healthcare facilities. Far from free though.

That's the catch.

Far from free, and tens of millions of Americans have no insurance.

 

[JohnD]

Not just Cuba

US spends more money, and has worse outcomes, than we do.

 

[JohnW2]

Not just Cuba. US spends more money, and has worse outcomes, than we do.

Is Cuba actually on that plot - I can't see it?

That regression line they've drawn on there is potentially misleading, since it is so highly influenced by a small number of low spend/low life expectancy countries. What it distracts one from is the fact that, if one forgets those few countries, there is a wide horizontal band, of countries with life expectancies between ~79 and ~83 years, but with a very wide range of expenditures used to achieve that 'outcome'. If one removes those distractions (as best as one can in haste!), what one has is something this:

Although, admittedly, the US has a slightly lower life expectancy than any of those other countries, the striking point is obviously the US healthcare expenditure. If they spent about half of what they do spend, and achieved the same 'outcome', it would look something like:

... in which case the US would not be all that remarkable. So, although a lot of the things said about the US healthcare system are undoubtedly true, they are perhaps not quite so much 'out on a limb' (other than in terms of expenditure) as many seem to think.

So I suppose that an impassionate interpretation of that graph would be that once one gets beyond a healthcare spend of about 2,000 USD per capita, the 'outcome' (at least, as measured by life expectancy) is much the same, whether the spend is 2,000, 4,000, 6000 or even 8,500 USD.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I have noted how prescribed drugs and over counter drugs are looked as so different even if the same item. If my mother is prescribed paracetamol the carers have to document stock levels and when given. But buy over the counter and the carers are not involved. I know a prescription is free in this country only health care we pay for is dental, but I note my daughter seems to visit doctor every time she visits Turkey because she actually gets things done.

But as to solar panels I note again in Turkey water heating normally done with solar panels and houses have a flat roof to access panels with easy and wash them. Here getting access to panels is not as easy and my father-in-laws panels (for water heating) seemed to work until we found reason for lower electric bill was moved to gas heating instead of electric the solar panels are useless.

Be it electric or water it is so easy for installers to con people into thinking their panels are working well. The bill reduces so they think must be working. I think as the smart meters role out people will be caught out. Same with water meter. It is so easy to say I have saved £x and every one will tell you when they have saved money. But get one of the new fangle loos not seal and water today does not splash outside alerting one to leak but sneaks away down the pan so first you know is when there is a large bill.

It is human nature to not admit when you have made an error. My father-in-law will not admit his panels are a waste of money even though we know they are. He will tell you how much they have saved him.

USA and UK are very different. They have huge distances for their power lines so their frequency should be lower than ours to reflect that fact. In South Africa I am told they use DC for long runs to reduce losses here in UK distances are not that great so 50 Hz is fine. Why USA has higher not a lower frequency to us I just don't know. May be they to use DC for long runs? May be just history and it was just what was selected during battle of the currents?

As to how many small transformers rather than our larger transformers effect the micro generation I don't know. Likely we will find there is some optional software which just makes it look better and really it's all a big con by some German multi national?

 

[JohnW2]

I have noted how prescribed drugs and over counter drugs are looked as so different even if the same item. If my mother is prescribed paracetamol the carers have to document stock levels and when given. But buy over the counter and the carers are not involved.

I think you are misinterpreting the situation. The carers have to check and document any medicines they give, as QC, documentation and 'accountability' measures - whether they are very potent prescription drugs or simple drugs which are available OTC. Your mother (or family members etc.) may given any medicines to her without such formalities, again whether they are very potent prescription drugs which have been prescribed or simple OTC drugs which she has bought by/for herself. Even if a carer 'administered' a drug which had been bought OTC by/for your mother, (s)he should still document that administration.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

USA and UK are very different. They have huge distances for their power lines so their frequency should be lower than ours to reflect that fact. In South Africa I am told they use DC for long runs to reduce losses here in UK distances are not that great so 50 Hz is fine. Why USA has higher not a lower frequency to us I just don't know.

We've been through this before, and I think you'll find that the 50Hz and 60Hz arose out of arbitrary historical decisions/evolutions. Europe's 50 Hz may have been regarded as a round number more in keeping with the metric system (with there being electrical reasons not to go as high as 100 Hz), whilst the arbitrary 60Hz may have arisen simply by 'reasoning' such as "60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute, so why not 60 cycles in a second?"!

I doubt very much that you would find any appreciable difference between 50Hz and 60Hz transmission/distribution, even with 'American distances'. As for DC, my understanding is that, when that is used (including, IIRC, for the 'cross-channel' links) is it to alleviate problems of synchronisation rather than anything to do with transmission losses.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Certainly it seems to be that German AEG became one of largest suppliers of generating equipment in Europe and had settled on 50 Hz, while Westinghouse in the U.S. decided that 60 Hz was a better choice (as had been suggested by Nikola Tesla, if I recall correctly). But there were numerous frequencies employed in the early days, from as low as 16-2/3 to as high as 100 and even 133 Hz.

The Niagara Falls project (at least on the U.S. side) adopted 25 Hz and that became a common frequency in upstate New York in the early days. I can't remember the date, but I know it was only quite recently that the 25 Hz generators were retired from service (although they'd been running into converters for 60 Hz for a long time by then).

Quite an extensive area of southern California was 50 Hz originally, and Los Angeles went through a conversion to 60 Hz in the 1920's or early 1930's. Some areas were still on 50 Hz into the late 1940's or early 1950's.

Several areas of the U.K. used 40 Hz prior to the National Grid, as did parts of Western Australia. I don't know when the last 40 Hz system shut down, but I do know that Garrard was listing 40 Hz motor pulleys for some of its turntables until at least the late 1950's.

Even today with most developed countries standardized on one frequency, Japan still has roughly half the country on 50 Hz and the other half on 60 Hz, due to the early installation of AEG generators in the east and General Electric in the west. I believe they have d.c. interconnects between the two systems.

There are certainly some long-distance d.c. transmission lines here in the States, such as the one out here in the west which runs some 800 miles or more from Oregon down to Los Angeles. And unlike the compact U.K. with a fully synchronized National Grid, there are three distinct interconnect regions in the U.S., with no synchronization between them.

 

[JohnD]

... in which case the US would not be all that remarkable.

The US is remarkable in being an advanced Western country with a life expectancy worse than all the Western European countries shown. It is also remarkable in having by far the highest healthcare spend.

Combine those two remarkable facts and it strongly suggests that the US model of healthcare is remarkably poor.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who uses 400Hz?

 

[JohnW2]

The US is remarkable in being an advanced Western country with a life expectancy worse than all the Western European countries shown.

Slightly less, yes - but, as below, life expectancy is multifunctional and not necessarily a good index of the quality of healthcare. For example, how, I wonder, do 'lifestyle issues' (e.g. diet, obesity etc.) in the US compare with those in other countries? We are, after all, only talking of a year or two difference in life expectancy.

It is also remarkable in having by far the highest healthcare spend.

As I said, that is easily the most striking feature of the data.

Combine those two remarkable facts and it strongly suggests that the US model of healthcare is remarkably poor.

The model is clearly poor in that it is resulting in a healthcare spend which is dramatically higher than appears to be necessary (as witness other countries) in order to achieve the same life expectancy. As I said, the data appear to indicate that, once one has got past the 2,000 USD threshold, healthcare spend appears to have virtually no bearing on life expectancy - increasing it from 2,000, or to 6,000, or even to 8,500 USD does not appear to result in any increase in life expectancy. in fact, if one combines together the two graphs in the link you provided, it seems that in virtually all cases (with the notable exception of US, and to some extent Norway), countries simply spend "what they can afford" (~13% of GDP) on healthcare, but (per previous graphs) most achieve essentially the same life expectancy, regardless of how much money per person that 13% actually represents.....

Of course, life expectancy is by no means the only, and not necessarily the best, measure of the quality of healthcare, and is subject to all sorts of other factors. Furthermore, 'life expectancy at birth' can be little more than an educated guess, since we can only know for certain about the life expectancy of people born ~80 years ago - long before most countries' current healthcare systems were even dreamed of!

Kind Regards, John