Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[SpontaneousOrder]

Figures?

From robinho's link:

The US has the highest health spending in the world - equivalent to 17.9% of its gross domestic product (GDP), or $8,362 per person. And it's not all private - government spending is at $4,437 per person, only behind Luxembourg, Monaco and Norway

But a google will yield similar figures from various sources. The U.S is a monster of a system, arguably worse than a 100% socialised system.

** edit** sorry.. that's the bias showing. i meant to say arguably worse than both 100% socialised and 100% private.

[Old Greg]

From robinho's link:



But a google will yield similar figures from various sources. The U.S is a monster of a system, arguably worse than a 100% socialised system.

** edit** sorry.. that's the bias showing. i meant to say arguably worse than both 100% socialised and 100% private.

Public funding of private provision is poor. But treatment based 100% on ability to pay gets ropey after about 1 week when the renal dialysis patients start dying.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Public funding of private provision is poor. But treatment based 100% on ability to pay gets ropey after about 1 week when the renal dialysis patients start dying.

Which what what to do with the idea that state funded healthcare makes it more expensive?

[pjclarke]

Here is an update of the outcomes chart from the Commonwealth Fund



The UK (84% funded by stolen taxes, universally available) is No 1 in 9 out of 12 measures and in the top 3 in all but 1. All for 9.6% of GDP as opposed to the US outlay of 17.9%

So in terms of outcomes, cost efficiency and value for money the NHS comes out streets ahead ... ... I vote we stick with it.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Here is an update of the outcomes chart from the Commonwealth Fund

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...11&w=740&la=en

The UK (84% funded by stolen taxes) is No 1 in 9 out of 11 measures and in the top 3 top in all but 1. All for 9.6% of GDP as opposed to the US outlay of 17.9%

So in terms of outcomes, cost efficiency and value for money the NHS comes out streets ahead ... ... I vote we stick with it.

So you entirely agree with me then that public expenditure on healthcare makes it more expensive? I'm not sure why we keep citing the same statistics as if it will result in some other conclusion.

[pjclarke]

So you entirely agree with me then that public expenditure on healthcare makes it more expensive? I'm not sure why we keep citing the same statistics as if it will result in some other conclusion.

By one's ability to to use reason to integrate their sensory perceptions into a coherent model of reality, and their ability to use their faculty of reason to navigate that reality, rationally, in order to live and prosper as men.

(Flawed) definition of sanity.

Your model of reality is incoherent. The UK system has one of the highest percentage of public funding, delivers the best outcomes of all the developed countries and costs far less less per person then the more privatised systems. Cold facts trump ideology.

[SpontaneousOrder]

What the holy crap are you talking about?

The UK system has one of the highest percentage of public funding, delivers the best outcomes of all the developed countries and costs far less less per person then the more privatised systems. Cold facts trump ideology.

You cite the United States, which has a HIGHER public spending on healthcare per capita than the NHS, and that turns out to deliver worse results.

What don't you understand? More public spending per capita ==> more expensive/lower performance. Lower spending per capita ==> cheaper/better performance.

[pjclarke]

You cite the United States, which has a HIGHER public spending on healthcare per capita than the NHS, and that turns out to deliver worse results.

The outcomes are for combined public + private.

What don't you understand? More public spending per capita ==> more expensive/lower performance. Lower spending per capita ==> cheaper/better performance.

FTFY. Its not about the absolute amounts, it is how the monies are spent : the UK has a far higher proportion of public provision and spends a far lower amount per capita and as a proportion of GDP.

Public=cheaper. What don't you understand?

[SpontaneousOrder]

The outcomes are for combined public + private.

....

the UK has a far higher proportion of public provision and spends a far lower amount per capita and as a proportion of GDP.

Your conclusion being that public = good, but then spending extra private money on top makes the overall performance decrease? (whether that be some inherent quality of private expenditure, or because private spending onto increases costs, or something else)

[pjclarke]

Your conclusion being that public = good, but then spending extra private money on top makes the overall performance decrease? (whether that be some inherent quality of private expenditure, or because private spending onto increases costs, or something else)

I very much doubt that one can extrapolate so simplistically, however I do conclude that your opinion that public expenditure on healthcare makes it more expensive is at odds with the evidence.