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

JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are still lying.

Or do you really not understand what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Ferrcrissakes.

I've given you dozens of studies, all of whom provide these same figures.

Do you have any alternate ones or are you just going to prevaricate?
 
volatile said:
Ferrcrissakes.

I've given you dozens of studies, all of whom provide these same figures.

Do you have any alternate ones or are you just going to prevaricate?
Click to expand...

You keep adding numbers to the $6000 that are already accounted for in the $6000.

You keep stating that the $6000 figure is payed in tax.


I think you may not be lying. I think you just fully misunderstand what you are talking about.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You keep adding numbers to the $6000 that are already accounted for in the $6000.

You keep stating that the $6000 figure is payed in tax.
Click to expand...

The $6,000 is spending from central taxation.That is government spending on healthcare. National expenditure.

What are you talking about?
 
volatile said:
The $6,000 is spending from central taxation.That is government spending on healthcare. National expenditure.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Liar.


The number you keep quoting is total health-care expense payed by all sources per capita.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
The $6,000 is spending from central taxation.That is government spending on healthcare. National expenditure.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

If the above was correct:

As you have stated 44% of health-care costs are payed for by the government. Based on this than the per capita costs for all sources of health-care in America is $13,636.

This would be over 30% of GDP spent on health-care.

:mgbanghead
 
Someone is confused about what "per-capita spending" means.
 
You are correct, I had misread the figures (though they do not undermine my substantive point).

Further: you misunderstand the percentages (as did I originally): 44% of the total spending on healthcare is public, 66% private. You you're right, the figure is less than $6,000 of public money per capita, my mistake.

It's actually $2,600 per person public spending for the US, which is topped up to $6,000 by private spending.

The comparable figure is $1,700 of public money per person in the UK, topped up to $2,000.

The fact remains: you pay more, and get less.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
You'll note that he's still wrong, he's just less wrong than we thought initially.
Click to expand...
Also, it would have been nice if he'd provided a link to the data instead of shouting "liar" at you.
 
volatile said:
$3000 DOLLARS. £1,400 POUNDS. Per year.

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.

There is no possible way that you pay less than us. Your state bill is between twice and three times as large per capita for starters, and you then have to pay for individual care on top.
Click to expand...


Actually, Medicaid costs were approximately $1000/person for 2007. Feel free to Google for the US budget - it is available online.

I admit, since you seem to have posted it a dozen times, I have to wonder where you got your number ... Never mind, I should have read ahead.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
Also, it would have been nice if he'd provided a link to the data instead of shouting "liar" at you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I had made a legitimate error in reading the stats, and the discussion could have gone on much quicker had he just pointed that out, calmly and rationally.

It strikes me that Mr Gnome really isn't interested in constructive discourse.
 
balrog666 said:
Actually, Medicaid costs were approximately $1000/person for 2007. Feel free to Google for the US budget - it is available online.

I admit, since you seem to have posted it a dozen times, I have to wonder where you got your number ...
Click to expand...

If you'd care to read this page of the thread, you'll see where my error arose.

I apologise. You're still wrong, you're just less wrong than I thought you were.

The fact still remains - you pay more, and get less. The per capita spend on public health is higher in the US, but it does not cover a fraction of what the NHS provides.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
You'll note that he's still wrong, he's just less wrong than we thought initially.
Click to expand...

However my figures are accurate:

jimbob said:
In the UK there is also private provision, but it is far smaller than the NHS.

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
Click to expand...
 
volatile said:
Errm. Not at all.

Every single source I have listed disagrees with your out-of-thin-air $550 billion figure, and places it in the trillions. Every single one. Every single source, governmental or independent, places the US per capita spending on healthcare at around the $6,000 mark. Plus, you have to spend more than that out of your own pocket for insurance, making the figures even more skewed in our direction.

Is libertarianism a symptom or a cause of the inability to read?


If you dispute the $6,000 per year figure, show your working.
Click to expand...


Your per capita figure includes all spending on healthcare and healthcare-related products, public and private. It includes all sorts of things that don't really fall under the label "medical care" or "medical service" including health insurance.
 
balrog666 said:
Your per capita figure includes all spending on healthcare and healthcare-related products, public and private. It includes all sorts of things that don't really fall under the label "medical care" or "medical service" including health insurance.
Click to expand...

I know that now.

However, when you compare the correct figures for public, you still pay more, and still get less.

ETA: The figures are compiled the same way between the US and the UK anyway, so even the total figures are compared, our system still comes out on top - we have lower infant mortality, for example, and better general health, even given your insurance spending.

In fact, as per the other thread, there is a case to be made that insurance systems actually discourage seeking treatment.
 
Last edited:
volatile said:
If you'd care to read this page of the thread, you'll see where my error arose.

I apologise. You're still wrong, you're just less wrong than I thought you were.

The fact still remains - you pay more, and get less. The per capita spend on public health is higher in the US, but it does not cover a fraction of what the NHS provides.
Click to expand...


As I said yesterday, perhaps so. ;)
 
balrog666 said:
As I said yesterday, perhaps so. ;)
Click to expand...

Does that not give you pause for thought? Does that not cause you to doubt the ability of the market to provide the best system? Does it not piss you off royally that you, on average, pay $4,000 more per year than I do and you get worse healthcare?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom