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

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you're saying that the reason the US pays more and gets less is because nations with nationalised healthcare systems are somehow not paying the full price for them?

If the socialist nations demand that the care is sold below market prices than someone without price controls will have to make up that difference.


I am honestly dumbfounded that this is not understood.

 

[volatile]

Are you unaware of the American armies in Europe?

Are you unaware of the American contributions to the United Nations?

It seems from this line of thinking, that you are of the opinion that as America subsidises our defence, we are able to afford healthcare.

This is a nonsense argument, as it has been pointed out to you that we spend LESS and get MORE. It's not as if we have a spare chunk of change lying around that we would otherwise have to spend on defence that is now suddenly freed up for medicine.

If your argument was correct, our spending would be HIGHER than yours.

 

[volatile]

If the socialist nations demand that the care is sold below market prices than someone without price controls will have to make up that difference.

Market prices are paid; they are just paid for out of taxation rather than individual pockets.

Please: in what way is the American taxpayer pushing down wages for our poor, impoverished GPs on $150,000 per annum?

Spell it out. Make an argument. State your case. Stop with the aphorisms and produce something coherent.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It seems from this line of thinking, that you are of the opinion that as America subsidises our defence, we are able to afford healthcare.

Yep.

This is a nonsense argument, as it has been pointed out to you that we spend LESS and get MORE. It's not as if we have a spare chunk of change lying around that we would otherwise have to spend on defence that is now suddenly freed up for medicine.

The Marshall plan is nonsense?

Let me know when the American people will be payed back with interest.

Gratitude would be the proper response. Socialist seem to think that the world owes them for something. I wonder why that is.

If your argument was correct, our spending would be HIGHER than yours.

Your spending is subsidized. Your logic here makes no sense. Of course you spend less, it is subsidized.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The Marshall Plan has already been payed back, Jerome. Mind actually providing proof?

 

[volatile]

Yep.

Righty-ho.

Let's just make this clear - you assert that because we are able to spend less on defence, we can spend more on healthcare.

Why, then, do we SPEND LESS than America on healthcare but get MUCH BETTER breadth and depth of service?

Follow your logic, Jerome! If it were true that our healthcare is better simply because we have more money to spend on health, our spending would be GREATER than yours. See?

Your spending is subsidized. Your logic here makes no sense. Of course you spend less, it is subsidized.

You're making two confused arguments, both of which are nonsense, and both of which are contradictory. Please pick one.

The first is, as outlined above, we are able to spend more on health because America "subsidises" our defence, giving us more disposable income to spend elsewhere. This is obviously nonsense, because, as above, we spend LESS than you do on health but get more.

The second is that American directly subsidises European healthcare. This seems to be your claim in the second part of this post, and it's as nonsense as the first. WHAT is subsidised (Our staff wages? Building costs? What?)? HOW does this subsidisation occur? In what way does the American taxpayer contribute directly towards the British NHS?

Which argument do you want to make - that there is direct subsidy (as implied when you state "[o]f course you spend less, it is subsidized."), or that there is indirect subsidy (as implied when you answered my question "you are of the opinion that as America subsidises our defence, we are able to afford healthcare" in the affirmative).

Both are absurd, of course, it would just be nice to have you clarify your position and stop the weaselling.

 

[jimbob]

If the socialist nations demand that the care is sold below market prices than someone without price controls will have to make up that difference.


I am honestly dumbfounded that this is not understood.

Aren't you arguing with me that "socialised healthcare pushes the costs up?

This would lower the costs, because the market price would be lower.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Righty-ho.

Let's just make this clear - you assert that because we are able to spend less on defence, we can spend more on healthcare.

Why, then, do we SPEND LESS than America on healthcare but get MUCH BETTER breadth and depth of service?

Follow your logic, Jerome! If it were true that our healthcare is better simply because we have more money to spend on health, our spending would be GREATER than yours. See?

You are incorporating the inefficiency of American government provided health-care and ignoring the cost payed by Americans to subsidize European health-care.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Aren't you arguing with me that "socialised healthcare pushes the costs up?

This would lower the costs, because the market price would be lower.

Price controls are not market prices.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The first is, as outlined above, we are able to spend more on health because America "subsidises" our defence, giving us more disposable income to spend elsewhere. This is obviously nonsense, because, as above, we spend LESS than you do on health but get more.

Find what you are attempting to say, logically.



You do know that America has a bigger pot.

 

[volatile]

You are incorporating the inefficiency of American government provided health-care and ignoring the cost payed by Americans to subsidize European health-care.

What?

That's not an argument, Gnome, and nor does it answer the questions posed. I've been reasonable, and posted what are clear and obvious objections to your 'argument' such that it is. If you have a case to make at all, damn well make it.

I asked two very simple, very concise questions. For your convenience, I shall post them again:

1) Are you claiming direct or indirect subsidy?

2) If the former: What is subsidised (and by how much), and how does this subsidisation occur?

 

[volatile]

Find what you are attempting to say, logically.



You do know that America has a bigger pot.

If it were the case that our healthcare was better because we had more money to spend due to "subsidy" elsewhere, our healthcare spending would, relatively, be greater than that in the US, would it not? If it were simply a case that the US cannot afford to provide good healthcare, you would expect per capita spending on public healthcare provision there to be lower, correct?

I'll repeat the salient point from my earlier post: If it were true that our healthcare is better simply because we have more money to spend on health, our spending would be GREATER than yours. It isn't, and you have the numbers sprinkled throughout this thread that demonstrate that to be the case.

In other words, if it were simply the size of available capital that dictated healthcare provision, British healthcare spending would be relatively higher than in the US. It isn't, this indirect subsidy cannot be the reason for the disparity in US and European healthcare...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What?

That's not an argument, Gnome, and nor does it answer the questions posed. I've been reasonable, and posted what are clear and obvious objections to your 'argument' such that it is. If you have a case to make at all, damn well make it.

I asked two very simple, very concise questions. For your convenience, I shall post them again:

1) Are you claiming direct or indirect subsidy?

2) If the former: What is subsidised (and by how much), and how does this subsidisation occur?

That is three questions numbered as two. I now understand your misunderstandings.

 

[jimbob]

Price controls are not market prices.

So Canadian prices for prescription drugs don't (ETA: effectively) set an upper limit on the prices just across the border?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In other words, if it were simply the size of available capital that dictated healthcare provision, British healthcare spending would be relatively higher than in the US. It isn't, this indirect subsidy cannot be the reason for the disparity in US and European healthcare...

Your argument hinges on British capital being equal to American capital.



Please don't ask my to prove this one.

 

[volatile]

That is three questions numbered as two. I now understand your misunderstandings.

You're the most irritating person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

I take it you can't answer them, then? You won't even commit to a position on exactly what you're arguing?

Maybe we should take this slowly, for your benefit. I see you can't handle more than one sentence of thinking at a time. Let's start here:

Does the US subsidise the British healthcare system directly or indirectly?

This is a simple question, and has four possible answers:

1) Directly.
2) Indirectly.
3) Both.
4) Neither.

Pick one. I dare you.

 

[jimbob]

Once more:

If a true free market would allow everyone to afford healthcare now (in a way completely unlike the situation when that was last tried).

How would this work?

How can someone on $7/hr with less than $4K savings could afford a week in hospital including paying the wages of the nurses, the anaesthetist, the surgeon, and the amortised capital costs, involved in a 5-hour surgary, couple of days in intensive care, and three days in a general ward.

Would they need insurance to cover that?

What weekly cost of that could they afford.

I suppose I should ask what this would be without anyu form of social security, becuase that must distort the lower end of the market.

India doean't have effective social security, so I suppose that everyone should be able to afford healthcare there, especially as the Indian economy is growing so rapidly. (If my reasoning is wrong for India, please tell me where the error is).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So Canadian prices for prescription drugs don't (ETA: effectively) set an upper limit on the prices just across the border?

If price controls in one market set the price lower than market value than in another market without price controls the cost will increase to make-up for the loss.

 

[Architect]

Are you unaware of the American armies in Europe?

There is a separate thread for you to substantiate your unfounded assertions regarding US defence of Western Europe. You have thus far declined to post there. I assume that, as with healthcare, you are unable to substantiate your bluster.

Are you unaware of the American contributions to the United Nations?

Are you aware of European contributions to the UN?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Once more:

If a true free market would allow everyone to afford healthcare now (in a way completely unlike the situation when that was last tried).

How would this work?

How can someone on $7/hr with less than $4K savings could afford a week in hospital including paying the wages of the nurses, the anaesthetist, the surgeon, and the amortised capital costs, involved in a 5-hour surgary, couple of days in intensive care, and three days in a general ward.

Would they need insurance to cover that?

What weekly cost of that could they afford.

I suppose I should ask what this would be without anyu form of social security, becuase that must distort the lower end of the market.

India doean't have effective social security, so I suppose that everyone should be able to afford healthcare there, especially as the Indian economy is growing so rapidly. (If my reasoning is wrong for India, please tell me where the error is).

Are we talking about India or America? The UK should answer for India.