This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[volatile]

Now you are presenting yourself as a liar.

I just linked you to two separate sources, one of which says $6,000, the other $5,440. The second of these is a government figure! All you've done is call these numbers "delusional", and provided no alternate figures for your claim.

If I'm wrong, prove it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The USA spends three times as much as the UK per capita on state healthcare, but you get nothing in return.

You are a liar. I am sorry your system sucks and you have to ration your health-care whilst waiting in line.

If the American quality is less than why do Canadians cross the border to pay out of pocket for the care they could get for "free" in Canada?

 

[jimbob]

By what mechanism would the cost be reduced?

There is a sufficient global market for medics that they won't need to accept a reduction in thier wages. A large hospital is still going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. It will have huge depreciation costs associated with this. Medical equipment is still going to be expensive. (The MRI scanner I mentioned earlier will still cost 2-million GBP). The large hospital will still have to be situated in a centre of population, this means that the land-cost is likely to be large, and have to beadded onto the bills.

If the cost is too high for the customer to pay, then the supplier can always stop trying to serve that market.

I can't see how the cost of this treatment could be less than several thousands of dollars, even with your magical free market pixies. This is a lot of money for someone on $7/hour to find.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Your numbers do not add up, because on top of whatever you pay in premiums, you also pay "an average of $5,440 for each person in the United States" for Medicaid.

Admit your lie.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

By what mechanism would the cost be reduced?

The market.

 

[volatile]

Admit your lie.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...ng&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=firefox-aHere's another study. You spend, yes $6,102 per person from government coffers and get 44% of healthcare costs paid. We pay a third of this, and get 86% of ours, double what you get.

I am not lying. All the numbers line up. You pay twice as much and get half the level of service.

 

[jimbob]

You are a liar. I am sorry your system sucks and you have to ration your health-care whilst waiting in line.

If the American quality is less than why do Canadians cross the border to pay out of pocket for the care they could get for "free" in Canada?

Here is my post linking to the OECD data, it supports volatiles contention.

JdG,

In the US the private provision is far larger than public.

Medicaid costs a larger percentage of GDP than the NHS does the British taxpayer.
(44.7% of 14.7%=6.6%) was public, as opposed to the UK's (83.4% of 7.7%=6.3%) of GDP Source:

OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...ng&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&client=firefox-aHere's another study. You spend, yes $6,102 per person from government coffers and get 44% of healthcare costs paid. We pay a third of this, and get 86% of ours, double what you get.

Your math is laughable.

By your numbers the 4 person household in America pays $55,544 in health-care costs.

 

[volatile]

You are a liar. I am sorry your system sucks and you have to ration your health-care whilst waiting in line.

You can keep calling me a "liar", but unless you have any sources to back up your claims, I'm gonna have to consider snickering at you and how much you're being screwed by the system.

UK healthcare is not "rationed", except for the most expensive and clinically controversial drugs. What are you blathering about?

If my numbers are "delusional", prove me wrong. Every source I find says your per capita spending on healthcare (of which Medicare accounts for a fifth and Medicaid a further fifth, prescription drugs a further chunk) is three times ours.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am not lying. You pay twice as much and get half the level of service.

You just presented a lie above.

How are those 6 month lines for health-care working out for you?

 

[volatile]

Your math is laughable.

By your numbers the 4 person household in America pays $55,544 in health-care costs.

Are you disputing the US government's figures? Or the OECD figures?

Per capita spending on healthcare from the public purse is three times that of the UK. Every study I've found says that.

Do you have a single source that disputes these numbers? You might not like them, but it's funny watching you try and rationalise your ideology with the facts!

 

[jimbob]

The market.

Elaborate, the poor are not attractive cusomers for healthcare, as they can't pay very much. Those with chronic illnesses are not good insurance risks, because they cost too much.

Provide specifics as to how the market will reduce the costs of the healthcare for the heart-disease case I have been discussing.

 

[volatile]

You just presented a lie above.

How are those 6 month lines for health-care working out for you?

Lulz.

People who need treatment get treatment when they need it, more or less. It's not a perfect system, but it is improving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6234523.stm

"More than three quarters of inpatients had waited less than 13 weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting at the end of November 2006 was 6.9 weeks.

For outpatients, 86.9% had waited under eight weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting was 3.6 weeks."


Where on earth did you get "6 month lines" from? The same place as the rest of your information?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You can keep calling me a "liar", but unless you have any sources to back up your claims, I'm gonna have to consider snickering at you and how much you're being screwed by the system.

UK healthcare is not "rationed", except for the most expensive and clinically controversial drugs. What are you blathering about?

If my numbers are "delusional", prove me wrong. Every source I find says your per capita spending on healthcare (of which Medicare accounts for a fifth and Medicaid a further fifth, prescription drugs a further chunk) is three times ours.

Department of Health and Human Services budget is $550 billion. This includes over 300 programs in addition to Medicaid.

That is about $1400 per person for the entire Department.

 

[volatile]

Department of Health and Human Services budget is $550 billion. This includes over 300 programs in addition to Medicaid.

That is about $1400 per person for the entire Department.

Need I give you the 44% / 86% link again?

"Spending on health care in the United States could double by 2017, reaching $4.3 trillion and accounting for 19.5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, a new government report shows." - http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87426

"U.S. per capita health spending continued to exceed per capita health spending in the other OECD countries, by huge margins, in 2001" - http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/23/3/10

"US health spending will constitute 18.7 percent of the gross domestic product by 2014, up from 15.3 percent in 2003, according to estimates by financial experts from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)." - http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/430/0

Every single source says the same as me. You spend approx. $6,000 per capita on healthcare.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Lulz.

People who need treatment get treatment when they need it, more or less. It's not a perfect system, but it is improving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6234523.stm

"More than three quarters of inpatients had waited less than 13 weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting at the end of November 2006 was 6.9 weeks.

For outpatients, 86.9% had waited under eight weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting was 3.6 weeks."

I get to just make an appointment at my convenience. Sorry that you have to wait weeks to get health-care.

Where on earth did you get "6 month lines" from? The same place as the rest of your information?

Papers
NHS waiting lists and evidence of national or local failure: analysis of health service data

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Need I give you the 44% / 86% link again?

Nope, but you might try this:

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Elaborate, the poor are not attractive cusomers for healthcare, as they can't pay very much.

You are wrong that the poor are not an attractive market.

Walmart has done pretty well suppling to the poor.

 

[volatile]

Nope, but you might try this:

Every single source I have found quotes broadly similar figures, that equate to roughly $6,000 per person.

Where did you pull yours from? How did you decide that the budget for the governmental health department was the total budget for healthcare in the US, when every single source, governmental or independent, agrees with me?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Every single source I have found quotes broadly similar figures, that equate to roughly $6,000 per person.

Where did you pull yours from? How did you decide that the budget for the governmental health department was the total budget for healthcare in the US, when every single source, governmental or independent, agrees with me?

You are not following your own thoughts.

What you have written above if different than what you have written before to attempt to make your points.