(edit title) Visiting doctor in Sweden Need to visit a doctor in Stockholm 6546846879876 Options

[mångk]

I am now able to see a clear picture that any family in Stockholm can face up to paying just shy of 10,000:- a year in worst case medical scenarios. Notice how I say "Wor ... (show full quote)

I am now able to see a clear picture that any family in Stockholm can face up to paying just shy of 10,000:- a year in worst case medical scenarios. Notice how I say "Worst case" and not annual costs. ... (hide full quote)

Not correct!

The most that a family with a minimum of 1 child can pay is the högkostnadsskydd for the adults in that family. The 'cost' of the child has already been offset by barnbidrag.

[Puffin]

So which are these two areas?

The 2 I know of are Stockholm and Gotland - so one city one rural - which rather undermines Bykes assertions that somehow major cities are forced to charge as Malmö, Gothenburg and Uppsala etc all don't charge for children

Basically it is all down to political priorities

[skogsbo]

Byke, given that Sweden's 3 largest cities hold less than 25% of the population, how does Stockholm represent over 50%? Ie. the majority?
Please show workings for full marks.

[mångk]

Do you expect an answer to that?

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Byke, given that Sweden's 3 largest cities hold less than 25% of the population, how does Stockholm represent over 50%? Ie. the majority?. Please show workings for full marks.

Because the administrative regions are much bigger than just the cities. Stockholms län is around 2.1M, i.e. 22% of the population, thus the three biggest regions encompass more than 50% of the population.

[mångk]

Correct!

Stockholms: 2091473
Skåne: 1252933
Västra Götaland: 1590604

Total 3 läns: 4935010

Total Sweden: 9482855

%age: 52.04

However if Puffin is correct regarding the 2 läns who Byke allegedly referred to:

Stockholms: 2091473
Gotlands: 57308

Total 2 läns: 2148781

%age: 22.66

Statistics source: http://www.scb.se/

22.66% is less than 50%!

[byke]

Byke,. I am not sure what your position is?

Citizen, observer and sitting.

Is it that you do not understand how things work or is it that you don't like that things work differently?

Neither, I simply commented that I thought that the cost of child medical associated costs were too high.

You have been provided with the information on högkostnadsskydd, you want to separate just the fact that some things must be paid first until you reach the limit, ignored that medicines are subsidised in Sweden.

Medicines are subsidized in many counties, yet still do not have such high costs even though they are offset with lower taxes.

Ignored that pretty much every child in Sweden receives barnbidrag which covers the additional costs that families with children incur. http://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers...fott/barnbidrag & http://www.forsakringskassan.se/wps/wcm/co...pdf?MOD=AJPERES

Are you saying that other nations dont get child benefits?

And if benefits are really the sticking block, then why should those benefits be offset by doctors appointment costs to a select group based on the geographical locations that dont appear to be any offset remote location costs. Since the largest area of congestion is charged for such.

Ignored that if a child is sick a parent can stay home and look after their child and receive income insurance for this up to 80% of the lost income: http://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers...oraldrapenning/

Yes, it is duly ignored.
Simply because its more fluff to step away from what was being discussed.

[byke]

Correct!Stockholms: 2091473Skåne: 1252933Västra Götaland: 1590604Total 3 läns: 4935010Total Sweden: 9482855%age: 52.04However if Puffin is correct regarding the 2 läns who ... (show full quote)

Correct!

Stockholms: 2091473
Skåne: 1252933
Västra Götaland: 1590604

Total 3 läns: 4935010

Total Sweden: 9482855

%age: 52.04

However if Puffin is correct regarding the 2 läns who Byke allegedly referred to:

Stockholms: 2091473
Gotlands: 57308

Total 2 läns: 2148781

%age: 22.66

Statistics source: http://www.scb.se/

22.66% is less than 50%! ... (hide full quote)

If you had read what I wrote it clearly stated I was interested to see :

If stockholm combine with the other 2 areas suggested, has a near equal or greater mass of people than that of the rest of Sweden

I didn't know what the 2 other areas as it was in part in reference to comments made by Puffin and Bender regarding this smaller fee.

However, If a specific area is put at a financial disadvantage.
Then maybe other areas should help towards offset this costs since it relates to welfare.
The same way that some area of profit generated in stockholm are used to provide help in other areas of sweden.

As even at 22.6% , its a considerable injustice.

Although I do want to make it clear, that I am only going by the claim that its only Stockholm and Gotland that has this additional offset of costs. And this is information sourced by another person.

[skogsbo]

Byke, you would have to consider tax revenue per capita, to decide an area was advantaged or disadvantaged by it size. Cities might also bring greater or less A&e customers through cars accidents or construction work, but do old people go rural to die? It's an impossible task.

[byke]

If such things are an impossible task, as you have stated.

Then revenue generated by Stockholm shouldn't be used to subsidize other areas of sweden - since its obviously an impossible impossible task to judge (according to you).

[mångk]

Medicines are subsidized in many counties, yet still do not have such high costs even though they are offset with lower taxes.

Can you substantiate this claim? Which particular 'läns' are you talking about?

Are you saying that other nations dont get child benefits?

Relevance?

Are you suggesting that a comparative analysis is only valid if it supports your unsubstantiated claims?

We are talking about barnbidrag in Sweden being provided to offset the additional costs households with children incur compared to households without children. Medical costs are obviously a cost. The amount paid before the högkostnadsskydd kicks in is significantly less than the amount of barnbidrag provided.

And if benefits are really the sticking block, then why should those benefits be offset by doctors appointment costs to a select group based on the geographical locations that ... (show full quote)

And if benefits are really the sticking block, then why should those benefits be offset by doctors appointment costs to a select group based on the geographical locations that dont appear to be any offset remote location costs. Since the largest area of congestion is charged for such. ... (hide full quote)

That actually makes no sense at all! Can you try explaining that again?

Yes, it is duly ignored.. Simply because its more fluff to step away from what was being discussed.

No, in fact it is very relevant! Do the countries you wish to selectively compare Sweden to, have such a benefit?

Or is it a case that comparisions are only allowed when they support your 'agenda'?

As someone suggested earlier it is not always practical, and sometimes not even rational, to exclude a more holistic overview.

[byke]

Can you substantiate this claim? Which particular 'läns' are you talking about?

I stand corrected due to autospell.
Countries. (Not counties)

Relevance?

Are you suggesting that a comparative analysis is only valid if it supports your unsubstantiated claims?

We are talking about barnbidrag in Sweden being provided to offset the additional costs households with children incur compared to households without children. Medical costs are obviously a cost. The högkostnadsskydd is significantly less than the amount of barnbidrag provided.

Relevance?
barnbidrag is child benefit.
If child benefit needs to be used to cover medical costs for citizens in specific areas, whereas other areas of sweden dont charge. Then their is a clear discrepancy.

That actually makes no sense at all! Can you try explaining that again?

You decided to deflect medical costs to say they were covered through child benefits.
If a large area is exempt from this medical cost, then it puts an unfair burden on others who have to use this cash which cold be used on other things as shown in exempt counties.

No, in fact it is very relevant! Do the countries you wish to selectively compare Sweden to, have such a benefit?


Or is it a case that comparisions are only allowed when they support your 'agenda'?

As someone suggested earlier it is not always practical, and sometimes not even rational, to exclude a more holistic overview.

Still not relevant.
No agenda there whatsoever, my only agenda was to comment , question and show a clear discrepancy which is yet again met with deflection ... as nothing is wrong in Sweden. And any comment that looks to question or examine anything in an area inhabited by a person who may be foreseen as foreign - must obviously be hating sweden or Sweden bashing.

Again,
based on family health care related issues.
The worst case scenario for 2 adults and as many sprogs as one can physically squeeze out is just shy of a 10,000:- per year.

Unless you live in an area of Sweden which doesn't charge children to see a doctor.
Then the worse case scenario is just shy of 9,000:- per year.

And when one compares healthcare for children between the UK and Sweden.
There is a considerable difference regarding medical costs.

[mångk]

However, If a specific area is put at a financial disadvantage.Then maybe other areas should help towards offset this costs since it relates to welfare.The same way that some ... (show full quote)

However, If a specific area is put at a financial disadvantage.
Then maybe other areas should help towards offset this costs since it relates to welfare.
The same way that some area of profit generated in stockholm are used to provide help in other areas of sweden. ... (hide full quote)

Okay, I think I may know what you are trying to say here!

The key thing to be aware of is that not all functions are provided at a national level.

Even if there is minimum standard set at a national level that is to apply to 'Sweden', the individual läns and kommuns are generally free to exceed this minimum standard as they are deemed to have a better understanding of the specific needs of the inhabitants of that particular län or kommun. In some instances they are even allowed to vary this minimum standard if it can be justified.

[byke]

Then based on the same equation, then surely its not in Stockholm's interest to fund other areas of Sweden.
Since obviously these areas are allowed to vary "this minimum standard if it can be justified" (aka not able to generate enough tax revenue to cover their living past their means or expectations).

[mångk]

I stand corrected due to autospell.. Countries. (Not counties)

If child benefit needs to be used to cover medical costs for citizens in specific areas, whereas other areas of sweden dont charge. Then their is a clear discrepancy.

See below

You decided to deflect medical costs to say they were covered through child benefits.If a large area is exempt from this medical cost, then it puts an unfair burden on others ... (show full quote)

You decided to deflect medical costs to say they were covered through child benefits.
If a large area is exempt from this medical cost, then it puts an unfair burden on others who have to use this cash which cold be used on other things as shown in exempt counties. ... (hide full quote)

See below

Still not relevant.No agenda there whatsoever, my only agenda was to comment , question and show a clear discrepancy which is yet again met with deflection ... as nothing is w ... (show full quote)

Still not relevant.
No agenda there whatsoever, my only agenda was to comment , question and show a clear discrepancy which is yet again met with deflection ... as nothing is wrong in Sweden. And any comment that looks to question or examine anything in an area inhabited by a person who may be foreseen as foreign - must obviously be hating sweden or Sweden bashing. ... (hide full quote)

Again,based on family health care related issues.The worst case scenario for 2 adults and as many sprogs as one can physically squeeze out is just shy of a 10,000:- per year.U ... (show full quote)

Again,
based on family health care related issues.
The worst case scenario for 2 adults and as many sprogs as one can physically squeeze out is just shy of a 10,000:- per year.

Unless you live in an area of Sweden which doesn't charge children to see a doctor.
Then the worse case scenario is just shy of 9,000:- per year.

And when one compares healthcare for children between the UK and Sweden.
There is a considerable difference regarding medical costs. ... (hide full quote)

See below

Then based on the same equation, then surely its not in Stockholm's interest to fund other areas of Sweden.Since obviously these areas are allowed to vary "this minim ... (show full quote)

Then based on the same equation, then surely its not in Stockholm's interest to fund other areas of Sweden.
Since obviously these areas are allowed to vary "this minimum standard if it can be justified" (aka not able to generate enough tax revenue to cover their living past their means expectations). ... (hide full quote)

No because that is based on at least one false premise!

That is why I asked if you were aware of how things work!

What I suggest is you look at what functions you have raised and/or excluded are determined at a national, län or kommun level, then what authority oversees that function and if any part of that function has been delegated. And how they overlap, if at all.

What you may be arguing may not be a 'Sweden' issue, but a 'Stockholm' issue!

It may turn out to be a non-issue, but one worth discussing. Even if at the end of it all it works out that the position taken was based on a false argument based on a false premise, it still is worthwhile because what you have raised, even if indirectly, is a common error that many immigrants make when they move to Sweden!