Originally posted by Wajoma So those figures match Deep Thoughts?
DeepThought's figure puts the cost per capita (not corrected for purchasing power) for the UK (NHS only) at about 39% of the cost of American health care. The Wikipedia figure (2011, OECD) includes private health care and puts the cost at about 40% of American health care per capita (corrected for purchasing power). A more meaningful comparison looks at the relative share of GDP for total health care expenditure, which puts the UK cost of health care per capita at about 53% of the American cost. Health care in the US is the most expensive of the rich industrialized nations, and gives poor results for it. But you knew that already.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra DeepThought's figure puts the cost per capita (not corrected for purchasing power) for the UK (NHS only) at about 39% of the cost of American health care. The Wikipedia figure (2011, OECD) includes private health care and puts the cost at about 40% of American health care per capita (corrected for purchasing power). A more meaningful comparison looks at ...[text shortened]... ve of the rich industrialized nations, and gives poor results for it. But you knew that already.
Should have no problem getting people to enrol in and contribute to a voluntary not for profit system then.
Originally posted by Wajoma Is that figure per head a total? i.e. does it include what people have to spend personally to get off the public waiting list when in pain or suffering other life debilitating conditions.
It's common in NZ. Need a knee replacement? That's probably a year to wait for that.Pain get's too great? (and I can assure you it is a painful condition) can't afford ...[text shortened]... go private.
Saves the goobermint some money and makes their stats look better in the process.
The NHS figures were for total NHS budget of which 0.6% comes from NHS facilities being sold for private use. It does not include for example BUPA. I used a straightforward spot price conversion between US dollars and sterling, not taking into account purchasing price parity. Even so the NHS bill per person (including all legal residents) averaged over the U.K. (really there are four NHS's) in USD is $3285, the figure given on the Wikipedia page Kazet is referring to is $3405 (for the UK) so the difference is of the order of 3.5% - take this figure with a pinch of salt, the total expenditure figure uses a PPP conversion, I used a spot price. All I've demonstrated in this post is that private health care does not make a significant difference to the figures in the U.K..
An interesting point is that NHS Scotland and NHS Wales are each about £300 cheaper per year per person than NHS England. They are administered by the devolved Scottish and Welsh governments respectively. I'd need to do quite a lot of research to state this categorically, but I suspect that that extra £300 a year per person is due to the comparative enthusiasm for the central government for the Private Finance Initiative compared with the devolved governments of Wales and Scotland.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Normbenign is aware of the figures - I have pointed them out repeatedly. He would just rather pay more for lower quality health care just so he can deny health care to a class of "undeserving" people.
Originally posted by normbenign Not close to a good analogy. Enrolling in a health care plan poses what risk, compared to voluntary military service which poses a real risk of death.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Normbenign is aware of the figures - I have pointed them out repeatedly. He would just rather pay more for lower quality health care just so he can deny health care to a class of "undeserving" people.
Numbers are only part of the story. Taken apart from known "human actions" they are easily distorted. We know that "free stuff" is most often overused, and it is hardly likely that "free" stuff is going to cost less than the same services, in the same place in a market system.
The same argument could be made for the cost of vodka and toilet tissue in the Soviet Union communist system. They were both "free", however I'll take buying Charmin and Absolute (or one of hundreds of alternatives)in America's market than what the Russians got "free".
This isn't to say that there aren't problems in the American health care system. Most of them involve too much government control, not too little. By the way it is a pure lie that I have any interest in denying health care to any group of people. There are no deserved or undeserved. Each of us deserves the services of people who willingly give it to us for whatever payment we arrange. When we say that any provider of health care or any other product or service must do so due to government force we turn that provider into a slave of government.
Originally posted by normbenign Not close to a good analogy. Enrolling in a health care plan poses what risk, compared to voluntary military service which poses a real risk of death.
I was talking about contributing to funding the scheme.
Originally posted by Wajoma Should have no problem getting people to enrol in and contribute to a voluntary not for profit system then.
Wajoma makes an important and irrefutable point here. If government health care were so good, a plan without force competing with private market based plans ought be no problem.
The real truth lies in the fact that in health care and almost everything else there is less than abundant supply, and a market fairly distributes the limited supply to the demand, while encouraging the increase of the supply. Government involvement with force on a market limits the incentives for new providers to join, and increases the costs.
The monopoly of public education is an irrefutable example of this in practice.
Originally posted by normbenign Numbers are only part of the story. Taken apart from known "human actions" they are easily distorted. We know that "free stuff" is most often overused, and it is hardly likely that "free" stuff is going to cost less than the same services, in the same place in a market system.
The same argument could be made for the cost of vodka and toilet tissue in ...[text shortened]... or service must do so due to government force we turn that provider into a slave of government.
What we know are the facts, and the facts tell us that American health care is inefficient. Deal with it.
It's interesting that you mention Absolut vodka. This company (currently a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard) was privatized in 2008 and was owned by the Swedish government prior to this date. How did you enjoy your socialist vodka?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra What we know are the facts, and the facts tell us that American health care is inefficient. Deal with it.
It's interesting that you mention Absolut vodka. This company (currently a subsidiary of Pernod Ricard) was privatized in 2008 and was owned by the Swedish government prior to this date. How did you enjoy your socialist vodka?
The market allows me, as you choose to ignore in my post, many different brands of vodka, many levels of quality fro which to choose. In toilet tissue, there are probably 20 brands at my supermarket to choose from. When I had thoracic surgery earlier this year, I chose from dozens of hospitals and doctors to have it done. Your facts are distortions, and I have to deal with that to avoid being forced into a system with no choices, and becoming a drone instead of an individual human.
There are reasons for overly high costs in American health care but they aren't related at all to a market system. Rather it is a system already burdened with too much government control and elimination of market forces.
Originally posted by normbenign Wajoma makes an important and irrefutable point here. If government health care were so good, a plan without force competing with private market based plans ought be no problem.
If a government army was so good, a plan without force competing with private market based plans ought to be no problem.
Now think about why this scheme would fail, and you might begin to understand why public health care is needed.
5 Things I Saw as a 9/11 First Responder
21 Sep '14 09:18
Back to Top