Labour Stealing Conservative Policies

retired_ks reddy · 10-11-2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
US spends well over $1000 per person on Medicaid, even with private healthcare. Less than the UK but Medicaid doesn't cover ****. On top of that people are paying for insurance (if they can afford it), and good luck to them if they need anything more than some prescription drugs.

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. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Source?

retired_brittneyloveshim · 10-11-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Source?

adapted from: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publ...2006061T02.xls

linked on http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407...56_1_1_37407,00.html

retired_ks reddy · 10-11-2007, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Source?

adapted from: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publ...2006061T02.xls

linked on http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407...56_1_1_37407,00.html </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't see a damn thing there that backs up what you said?

retired_brittneyloveshim · 10-11-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
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.

your first point is baffling and doesn`t expand in the slightest on your claim that the nhs is simply a means of providing employment.

i obviously don`t have evidence that private care wouldn`t provide the same quality in the same way that you don`t have evidence that it would, simply because the system we have in the uk has remained pretty much the same (in the sense of public funding, if not entirely public provision) since its inception. what i do have is very good economic reasons why it is the case that private provision of healthcare is not only less equitable but also less efficient, and what i also have is international comparisons which do not bear out your claim that private provision is cheaper.

retired_brittneyloveshim · 10-11-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Source?

adapted from: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publ...2006061T02.xls

linked on http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407...56_1_1_37407,00.html </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't see a damn thing there that backs up what you said? </BLOCKQUOTE>

what? do some simple maths.

uk healthcare expenditure is 2546 usd ppp, of which 85.5% is public. 2546*85.5/100=2176.83.

us healthcare expenditure is 6102 usd ppp (so much for private efficiency), of which 44.7% is public. 6102*44.7/100=2727.59.

retired_rachelst · 10-11-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:

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?

Basically, yes. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect.

retired_ks reddy · 10-11-2007, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
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.

your first point is baffling and doesn`t expand in the slightest on your claim that the nhs is simply a means of providing employment.

i obviously don`t have evidence that private care wouldn`t provide the same quality in the same way that you don`t have evidence that it would, simply because the system we have in the uk has remained pretty much the same (in the sense of public funding, if not entirely public provision) since its inception. what i do have is very good economic reasons why it is the case that private provision of healthcare is not only less equitable but also less efficient, and what i also have is international comparisons which do not bear out your claim that private provision is cheaper. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The evidence I have is millions of people pay the NHS tax, then pay more for private care because the NHS is so rubbish.

And for the first point, doctors/nurses/hospitals per head of population wins you votes. So when the government has an unemployment problem, employing them in the NHS is two birds for one stone.

retired_ks reddy · 10-11-2007, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Source?

adapted from: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publ...2006061T02.xls

linked on http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407...56_1_1_37407,00.html </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't see a damn thing there that backs up what you said? </BLOCKQUOTE>

what? do some simple maths.

uk healthcare expenditure is 2546 usd ppp, of which 85.5% is public. 2546*85.5/100=2176.83.

us healthcare expenditure is 6102 usd ppp (so much for private efficiency), of which 44.7% is public. 6102*44.7/100=2727.59. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try again. I CAN'T DO THE MATHS BECAUSE YOU HAVE YET TO SOURCE THE FIGURES YOU'RE QUOTING.

Got it?

retired_rachelst · 10-11-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Source?

adapted from: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publ...2006061T02.xls

linked on http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,3381,en_2649_37407...56_1_1_37407,00.html </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't see a damn thing there that backs up what you said? </BLOCKQUOTE>

what? do some simple maths.

uk healthcare expenditure is 2546 usd ppp, of which 85.5% is public. 2546*85.5/100=2176.83.

us healthcare expenditure is 6102 usd ppp (so much for private efficiency), of which 44.7% is public. 6102*44.7/100=2727.59. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try again. I CAN'T DO THE MATHS BECAUSE YOU HAVE YET TO SOURCE THE FIGURES YOU'RE QUOTING.

Got it? </BLOCKQUOTE>

You quoted the link with the figures he's quoting.

retired_ks reddy · 10-11-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:

You quoted the link with the figures he's quoting.

Try to bear in mind we are not all terminally middle class, and hence some of us refuse point blank to countenance a spreadsheet on our HDDS.

Labour Stealing Conservative Policies

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Labour Stealing Conservative Policies