retired_ks reddy

disingenuous rubbish. your figures are about right for nhs per capita spending iirc but every other oecd country spends the same or more (in most cases, more), irrespective of the private/public breakdown. why is that if good private cover is so much cheaper? </BLOCKQUOTE>

So you admit I'm right while calling me disingenious?

And it's because the governments use health services to reduce unemployment, hence the rampant inefficiency.

retired_ks reddy

Actually over 2000$ less than UK.

retired_brittneyloveshim

if it`s a fact then give some examples. nice authorise any medicine that is proven clinically and is cost effective per qaly.

you still haven`t said what "best" is or how you would achieve it. i`m interested. </BLOCKQUOTE>

i refer you to my previous answer about being so literal, jeeeesus.

as for exact examples I cannot thnk of any specifics but there have been countless (yes i am aware that literally you could count them!!!) examples of certain drugs being available in one place and not in another etc </BLOCKQUOTE>

no, i`ve given you the chance to explain what you mean. i`m not insisting on being `literal`, i would like you to define what you mean by `best`. i am asking you to explain, in your own terms, what you meant.

if there are so many drugs then please give me a few examples.

retired_rachelst

Actually over 2000$ less than UK. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And?

retired_ks reddy

Actually over 2000$ less than UK. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And? </BLOCKQUOTE>

And 2000$ gets you quite a lot of medicare?

retired_brittneyloveshim

no, i`m calling you disingenuous because you said private healthcare costs only a grand. the implication is surely that the uk`s healthcare provision, of about £1500 per capita, is inefficient and that paying £600 per capita less would, in a private market, yield the same quality of care. that simply is not true.

your claim about unemployment is absolute ***** as well. if it was the case then why did so much of the increased spending in recent years go into increasing salaries of people already in the nhs? why did so many of the new nhs staff come from abroad?

retired_rachelst

Actually over 2000$ less than UK. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And? </BLOCKQUOTE>

And 2000$ gets you quite a lot of medicare? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah because the people that can't afford that will be paying £1650 per year in the UK? Or is it a case of **** 'em, they're poor?

retired_brittneyloveshim

Actually over 2000$ less than UK. </BLOCKQUOTE>

um, just factually inaccurate. here`s the 2004 (most recent) oecd stats on public sector health spending in ppp usd:

United Kingdom2176.83
United States2727.59

so the us spends $600 ppp more on healthcare for a system that only covers 25-30% of the population for provision that is far from extensive, than the uk does on providing a universal system which is far more extensive.

retired_ks reddy

no, i`m calling you disingenuous because you said private healthcare costs only a grand. the implication is surely that the uk`s healthcare provision, of about £1500 per capita, is inefficient and that paying £600 per capita less would, in a private market, yield the same quality of care. that simply is not true.

your claim about unemployment is absolute ***** as well. if it was the case then why did so much of the increased spending in recent years go into increasing salaries of people already in the nhs? why did so many of the new nhs staff come from abroad? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Because when you give people a job and tell them they're important they start to get big and STUPID ideas. See the posties.

And have you any evidence at all that private care would not provide the same quality? No, you don't, because it's bo||ocks. Otherwise people wouldn't spend what they're forced to on the NHS and still go private.

retired_ks reddy

Basically, yes.