Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-18-2018, 06:50 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
excluded from what exactly?
...why don't you ask yourself? You said, and I'll quote exactly what you said: "Yes, there are some states that exclude single, childless adults with no disabilities."

When you said "exclude", exclude from what exactly?

I thought I knew what you meant, but you seem to be confused, so I'll let you explain yourself first.

Quote:
emergency care, nobody.
Was the care you got that saved your leg "emergency care?"

The NHS covers all care, not just emergency care.

You've conceded that your system doesn't cover everybody (except for "emergency care").

Is the number of people not covered in the hundreds, in the thousands, or in the millions?

Quote:
non-emergency care has community clinics.

community clinics.
If someone needed Cardiothoracic Surgery, and were potentially a day away from loosing their leg, what diagnostic options are available to those on low incomes and don't qualify for Medicaid, and how much would it cost? What are the waiting times for the poor and how do those waiting times compare to the NHS? Is it possible for the poor to get the same level of treatment as those in the UK?

Can you get surgery at a community clinic? Do they get to keep their leg?
  #202  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:03 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Can you get surgery at a community clinic?
no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Do they get to keep their leg?
yes.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-18-2018 at 07:04 PM.
  #203  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:14 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
no.
...so where do poor people who don't qualify for medicaid go to get surgery?

Quote:
yes.
So a poor person with no health insurance and no money in the bank that didn't qualify for medicaid would have access to this level of service anywhere in the United States of America?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Time to see my family doctor, 1 day. time to see the Cardiologist (that I chose), within that week. Both appointments at my choosing, not theirs. From there I spent a couple of weeks going through a variety of tests starting with an EKG, a TEE, an MRI, a CT scan, and some kind of heart catheter test. Those were to both confirm the heart condition and verify related systems related to the heart. Once those were complete I chose my Heart Surgeon based on the Cardiologist's recommendations. That surgery was within a week. It was the only appointment chosen by the doctor.

the following year I had a massive blood clot in my leg. I went to my family doctor the week of my first symptom and then had a scan of the leg followed by a specialist, then a different type of test, then back to the specialist. It got worse so I went back to the specialist. I didn't think the diagnosis was right so I called my family doctor who ordered a different test that day which resulted in surgery the next day. All of the doctor's appointments and tests were done one right after the other at my choosing. From the first doctor's visit to surgery was a little over 3 weeks. Multiple doctors told me I was a day away from losing the use of my leg.
Is what happened to you an example of "emergency care", or did you get a whole different level of care?

Why are you so confident that a poor person with no health insurance and no money in the bank that didn't qualify for medicaid would be able to get the same level of care as you, and be able to keep their leg? And can you do a bit better than one word answers this time?
  #204  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:14 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Sorry if people are covered in other ways then medicaid?

what's you're point? Are you saying they don't have medical care?
It goes a lot easier if you just acknowledge that you were wrong.
  #205  
Old 02-19-2018, 01:55 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
So if you're poor, live in Alabama, but have no children...you qualify for Medicaid?
Yes.
Do you want to admit you misspoke, and actually they do not qualify for Medicaid?

Also, for the benefit of us not as familiar with the US Medical system as you claim to be, could you please provide a link which explains how people such as I've described above obtain emergency care?
  #206  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:39 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
You've got to be kidding me. Thats a fricking very big caveat. So if you are poor but you aren't pregnant, blind, with disability (or a family member with disability), with no kids or you aren't a senior citizen, you don't qualify? You could never ever qualify, until you got to the age of 65?
Some people with urgent medical needs may not wish to wait until they're 65 years old, and may have trouble getting pregnant, but they always have the option of blinding themselves. Perhaps a non-blind person seeking medical care is one of those lazy persons right-wingers preach against, not industrious enough to do what it takes to meet their needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Yes, there are some states that exclude single, childless adults with no disabilities. They're expected to pay for food, clothing, lodging, and insurance. They're limited to emergency treatment in hospitals for serious illness ...
Oh no. I get so tired of the same ignorances being repeated over and over and over and over and over and OVER again.

Yes, some hospitals have an obligation not to dismiss applicants unless they're no longer in immediate danger of dying, but that is NOT the same as providing needed care.

Moreover, having stabilized you so you might not die immediately, the hospital is still free, if unlikely, to send you an exorbitant bill, and even to sue to garnish your wages.

Pro-tip for Magiver: repeating non-truths over and over will win you friends only among idealogues who care nothing for truth. Writing "Yes, I was wrong!" will improve your standing here. The choice is yours.
  #207  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:20 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,065
I'll just repeat my own question from post # 166:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Magiver, in post # 86, post # 105 and post # 120 you've repeatedly asserted that the US has health care for the poor. Yet my impression from reading boards like this one is that poor people in the US have severe issues with affording healthcare. I also posted a cite showing that tens of thousands of people die due to lack of healthcare. This is certainly very far away

How do you feel the US healthcare for the poor stacks up to the NHS? In coverage, results, public health etc?
Although perhaps Magivers claims could be better addressed as a separate thread?
  #208  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:38 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I'll just repeat my own question from post # 166:


Although perhaps Magivers claims could be better addressed as a separate thread?
Maybevthis one:

Last edited by Bone; 02-23-2018 at 10:46 PM. Reason: Fixed link
  #209  
Old 02-23-2018, 05:43 PM
mrcheese mrcheese is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I lived in the UK for one year almost two decades ago, and I was very impressed with the NHS. The simplicity of the system - as in, not even having to think about in-network, our-of-network, differing copays, co-insurances, deductibles, etc - totally blew my mind. But I have a few questions:


2. What one aspect of the system would you improve?
I think part of improving the nhs needs to be an understanding and acceptance by the population that they have a personal responsibility for aspects of their health. I fully support a free at the point of use system but this does make people blind to the burden they place on the system when they present with self inflicted or minor ailments.

There were some earlier comments about funding levels and the political parties...one in particular about the “Nasty Tories”...I don’t think that’s fair. All political parties genuinely want a good functioning nhs that is free for users. The difference is that the Tory party at least recognises that there needs to be at least some financial responsibility for the country to borrow and function in the long term. I’d love to spend more on the nhs but not so much that future generations are burdened with Greek levels of debt. Spending may have been high under Blair but his minister left a note on the desk saying there was no money left.
  #210  
Old 02-23-2018, 05:48 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcheese View Post
Spending may have been high under Blair ...
This is incorrect. Spending on the NHS remained below the European average under Blair. It was never "high":

https://commoninfirmities.files.word...-31-04-pm1.png
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe

Last edited by up_the_junction; 02-23-2018 at 05:49 PM.
  #211  
Old 02-23-2018, 07:26 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
This is incorrect. Spending on the NHS remained below the European average under Blair. It was never "high":

https://commoninfirmities.files.word...-31-04-pm1.png
That's true but completely irrelevant. Labour vastly increased NHS funding as this graph shows. NHS funding doubled from 1997 to 2007. And the Tories nearly doubled it too from 1979 to 1997. That it remained below the European average is by the by.
  #212  
Old 02-23-2018, 07:42 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
The operative word was "high". But thanks.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #213  
Old 02-23-2018, 11:08 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

Pro-tip for Magiver: repeating non-truths over and over will win you friends only among idealogues who care nothing for truth. Writing "Yes, I was wrong!" will improve your standing here. The choice is yours.
Acknowledging the actual delays posted by the NHS represent a serious risk in health would improve your position greatly.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #214  
Old 02-24-2018, 12:47 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Acknowledging the actual delays posted by the NHS represent a serious risk in health would improve your position greatly.
And yet their outcome is better
  #215  
Old 02-26-2018, 04:44 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Acknowledging the actual delays posted by the NHS represent a serious risk in health would improve your position greatly.
Except that they don't, by and large, as supported by both statistics and personal experience reported here, so why would repeating that non-truth improve his position?
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #216  
Old 02-26-2018, 05:11 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,065
Its what I meant by people being so used to priority by ability to pay, that they find it hard to grasp prioritizing by medical need.

Magiver, in the US many people are uninsured, underinsured or face other financial barriers to healthcare such as large co-pays and non-coverage and other denial of payment from the insurance side. This leads to them not seeking medical service or delaying it until the issue is critical. Since these delays are not grounded in medical evaluations, they are spread across the spectrum of seriousness. And so these delays pose a far larger risk to health than anything found in the NHS system. As seen in the comparison of outcomes.

I'll also just repeat myself from post # 166: "Magiver, in post # 86, post # 105 and post # 120 you've repeatedly asserted that the US has health care for the poor. Yet my impression from reading boards like this one is that poor people in the US have severe issues with affording healthcare. I also posted a cite showing that tens of thousands of people die due to lack of healthcare. This is certainly very far away

How do you feel the US healthcare for the poor stacks up to the NHS? In coverage, results, public health etc?"
  #217  
Old 02-26-2018, 05:42 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,987
In a system with UHC, it may happen that someone is mistakenly classified as lower risk and gets complications (including death) while waiting for further treatment.

But in a system without UHC, there is a percentage of the population which doesn't even reach triage. The possibility of having to wait exists the same (no matter how much patients pay, doctors still do not grow in flower pots, or in five minutes), but it only affects that part of the population which actually gets to see a doctor.

Magiver is refusing to acknowledge both that there is a part of the US population who don't have apropriate access to medical treatment and that "having access" does not equal "having instantaneous access" or instantaneous procedures.





People who don't go to the doctor because they're being macho exist in both cases; for purposes of this discussion let's say that their percentiles are similar.

Last edited by Nava; 02-26-2018 at 05:45 AM.
  #218  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:09 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 361
Quick antidote. A friend with poor insurance had an ingrown toenail. Her deductible is high, so she would have had to pay our of pocket to see her primary care physician, then pay even more when he referred her to a podiatrist. Sour she decides to handle it herself. Long story short, it gets infected and she goes to the emergency room. What would have cost hundreds now costs thousands.

Last edited by Batano; 02-26-2018 at 06:10 AM.
  #219  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:21 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,036
Sounds like she needed a quick antidote.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #220  
Old 02-26-2018, 06:39 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,911
Which reminds me, one episode of a TV documentary series here on GPs in action (why so many people seem happy to have their discussions about their boils, rashes, digestive problems and depressions shown on TV mystifies me, but that doesn't stop me watching) showed one of the GPs removing an ingrowing toenail on the spot under local anaesthetic (not a pretty sight). This isn't to say all GPs could or would do so without onward referral, no doubt it depends on the individual circumstances, or what extra training a GP might have had.

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 02-26-2018 at 06:41 AM.
  #221  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:03 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I'll also just repeat myself from post # 166: "Magiver, in post # 86, post # 105 and post # 120 you've repeatedly asserted that the US has health care for the poor. Yet my impression from reading boards like this one is that poor people in the US have severe issues with affording healthcare. I also posted a cite showing that tens of thousands of people die due to lack of healthcare. This is certainly very far away
As I understand it, in the US the very poor can just turn up at the hospital because the hospital must treat them and they have nothing to lose, because they have nothing. Rather, it's the low and low-middle income Americans - the precariat - that have problems because they can't afford decent insurance - as you note they're under-insured, if they're insured at all - and when they do have a big problem they lose everything.
  #222  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:27 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,065
Well as I understand it, the hospital/emergency room must stabilize them. Which means that a lot of conditions only get their immediate symptoms treated rather than the causes. Also, nothing prevents them from handing the patients bills that may topple a precarious economy afterwards. But I don't actually have anything but theoretical knowledge of that, maybe someone here knows more?
  #223  
Old 02-26-2018, 08:41 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
Which reminds me, one episode of a TV documentary series here on GPs in action (...) showed one of the GPs removing an ingrowing toenail on the spot under local anaesthetic (not a pretty sight).
In Spain something like that would usually be handled by the GP, but one issue I found in my limited experience with the US system is that they referred you real quick, and sometimes to specialties which didn't seem to make sense to us foreigners. I suspect at least some of the people involved were backscratching like crazy, though.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #224  
Old 02-26-2018, 08:44 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Acknowledging the actual delays posted by the NHS represent a serious risk in health would improve your position greatly.
That there are delays in some treatments and tests is acknowledged by everyone, since they are provided based on medical assessment instead of ability to pay. But whether that consistutes a “serious risk” is your opinion, not necessarily borne out by the facts.

It is a fact that you said poor childless adults in Alabama get Medicaid and it is a fact that they do not. No opinions involved - yet you won’t admit your error; instead you change subjects.

It’s embarassing.

Last edited by Ravenman; 02-26-2018 at 08:45 AM.
  #225  
Old 02-26-2018, 11:05 AM
Lannister Lannister is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9
NHS is awful. Me and my Swiss girl friend have had nothing but bad experiences with them. The doctors and nurses make you feel like an utter piece of shit for having the gall to waste their time, not matter how serious your illness, the attitude is unbelievable.
All steams from lack of competition.
Healthcare in Switzerland it like night and day. I think most people are afraid of a predatory American system, but Switzerland has proved you can have affordable, efficient and high quality health care that the government protects against excessive prices hiking etc.
  #226  
Old 02-26-2018, 11:16 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,987
Given that my own experience with Swiss healthcare was "just go over the border in France", I can't claim it was my favorite place for that.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #227  
Old 02-26-2018, 01:00 PM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,263
If we in the UK put 10% of our salaries into healthcare I have no doubt that it would surpass even the Swiss.
  #228  
Old 02-26-2018, 02:00 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That there are delays in some treatments and tests is acknowledged by everyone, since they are provided based on medical assessment instead of ability to pay. But whether that consistutes a “serious risk” is your opinion, not necessarily borne out by the facts.

It is a fact that you said poor childless adults in Alabama get Medicaid and it is a fact that they do not. No opinions involved - yet you won’t admit your error; instead you change subjects.

It’s embarassing.
So a free clinic and hospital care don''t count if they're not handled by Medicare. Got it. You want to argue the semantics of Medicare vs my actual point of care available to the poor. As arguments go, yours is without merit and it's embarrassing you keep trying to score some bullshit point. You're wrong. We take care of the poor.

The only true nationalized health care we have in the US is the VA system. Unlike private insurance programs, they manage the doctors and facilities. They have not done well of late and the delays killed people.

The problem with threads like this is that every statement made is taken as an absolute. If I point out the delays in NHS care then suddenly it's the worst thing in the Universe. It doesn't matter that twice I said they're private insurance makes it the best of both worlds in the UK. You can get efficiently delayed care or you buy private insurance.

When it comes to health care, private health care does a better job of reducing delays. Universal health care is more efficient.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson

Last edited by Magiver; 02-26-2018 at 02:00 PM.
  #229  
Old 02-27-2018, 05:44 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,036
So have you abandoned your erroneous position that "the actual delays posted by the NHS represent a serious risk in health" then?
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #230  
Old 02-27-2018, 06:56 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
So a free clinic and hospital care don''t count if they're not handled by Medicare. Got it. You want to argue the semantics of Medicare vs my actual point of care available to the poor.
....Medicare? It runs some free clinics now, eh?
  #231  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:51 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lannister View Post
NHS is awful. Me and my Swiss girl friend have had nothing but bad experiences with them. The doctors and nurses make you feel like an utter piece of shit for having the gall to waste their time, not matter how serious your illness, the attitude is unbelievable.
All steams from lack of competition.
Healthcare in Switzerland it like night and day. I think most people are afraid of a predatory American system, but Switzerland has proved you can have affordable, efficient and high quality health care that the government protects against excessive prices hiking etc.
Switzerland is only affordable if you compare it with the stratospheric costs of the USA. If you take the US out of the equation it stands out as the most expensive model on earth. Earlier we've discussed how much better the NHS could be if it was funded as well as the German or French systems.

The Swiss system costs even more than the German and French systems. In terms of dollars spent per citizen it is in fact close to the total spending of the UK and France.

It is often talked up by the US health insurance industry, because it is compulsory for-profit insurance so the health industry can expect good profits there. It also puts a lot of the financial burden of healthcare onto the citizens.

Magiver, what you are ignoring is that universal healthcare is also better at reducing delays for medically urgent issues than poorly regulated and/or non-universal private insurance with spotty coverage.

You are also arguing on the presumption that healthcare for the poor in the US is anywhere near as good, something you've repeatedly failed to back up.
  #232  
Old 02-27-2018, 11:48 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lannister View Post
NHS is awful. Me and my Swiss girl friend have had nothing but bad experiences with them. The doctors and nurses make you feel like an utter piece of shit for having the gall to waste their time, not matter how serious your illness, the attitude is unbelievable.
All steams from lack of competition.
No one says' NHS', it's 'The NHS'. And no one says "with them", as if its a phone company contract.

It''s interesting your experience was 100% uniform - all those doctors and all those nurses.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #233  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:12 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,036
Must be all the steams.

I've certainly had some doctors (GPs and specialists) who were incompetent, jerks, or both, but that covers a subset of every human population.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy

Last edited by Gyrate; 02-27-2018 at 12:13 PM.
  #234  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:32 PM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I said they're private insurance makes it the best of both worlds in the UK. You can get efficiently delayed care or you buy private insurance.
So we all agree then. We should adopt an NHS like system And let people buy private insurance if they want. Sounds good to me.
  #235  
Old 03-02-2018, 05:41 AM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
If we in the UK put 10% of our salaries into healthcare I have no doubt that it would surpass even the Swiss.
We do though, don't we? Total earnings something like 1,000 billion, NHS spending roughly 125 billion. That's 12.5%.
  #236  
Old 03-02-2018, 06:21 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,263
The total revenue for the government is around £769bn. Less than half (£319bn) comes from tax and NI. The rest comes from indirect taxes (VAT, duty etc) and taxes on business.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...pend-it-all-on
  #237  
Old 03-02-2018, 06:56 AM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
I don't see how that changes anything. VAT and duty are paid by UK citizens too (mostly.) Corporation tax is paid by shareholders, a good portion of whom are also UK citizens, or is passed on to customers, again many of them in the UK.
  #238  
Old 03-02-2018, 11:32 AM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximenean View Post
We do though, don't we? Total earnings something like 1,000 billion, NHS spending roughly 125 billion. That's 12.5%.
The NHS costs roughly 3000 $ per person in the UK. The Swiss system costs, I believe, roughly 8500$ per person. When you multiply the difference up by the number of citizens, it is a godawfully large number.
  #239  
Old 03-02-2018, 02:27 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximenean View Post
We do though, don't we? Total earnings something like 1,000 billion, NHS spending roughly 125 billion. That's 12.5%.
It's almost as if it could be more complicated.

Why don't you try Google; type in 'NHS GDP' and click the 'Images' tab.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #240  
Old 03-02-2018, 02:42 PM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
The NHS costs roughly 3000 $ per person in the UK. The Swiss system costs, I believe, roughly 8500$ per person. When you multiply the difference up by the number of citizens, it is a godawfully large number.
Switzerland has about twice the income per person that the UK does, so the difference is not as dramatic as your numbers suggest. Naturally, richer countries spend more per person.

up_the_junction, to the extent that I can make sense of what you posted, I don't see how it addresses anything I have posted above. I am not making or implying any point about the appropriate level of public healthcare spending in the UK. I simply questioned the assertion that public healthcare costs Swiss employees more, relative to their income, than it does British people.
  #241  
Old 03-02-2018, 03:44 PM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximenean View Post
up_the_junction, to the extent that I can make sense of what you posted, I don't see how it addresses anything I have posted above. I am not making or implying any point about the appropriate level of public healthcare spending in the UK. I simply questioned the assertion that public healthcare costs Swiss employees more, relative to their income, than it does British people.
You're not "simply" doing anything. You seem to have included some of your very own "simple" maths - creating a GDP expenditure unknown by some measure to the rest of the world, including the OECD and other internationally respected independent analysts.

I hope you can make sense of that.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #242  
Old 03-02-2018, 04:37 PM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by up_the_junction View Post
You're not "simply" doing anything. You seem to have included some of your very own "simple" maths - creating a GDP expenditure unknown by some measure to the rest of the world, including the OECD and other internationally respected independent analysts.

I hope you can make sense of that.
You seem preoccupied with GDP, but bob++'s post and my response to it were talking about salaries. He said that 10% of salaries (not GDP) in Switzerland went towards healthcare, implying that that was a higher proportion than in the UK. I argued that roughly the same proportion of salaries in the UK went towards public healthcare.
  #243  
Old 03-03-2018, 12:57 AM
up_the_junction up_the_junction is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: South London
Posts: 4,746
Ignore me - sorry.
__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who believes themselves free Goethe
  #244  
Old 03-03-2018, 01:32 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximenean View Post
He said that 10% of salaries (not GDP) in Switzerland went towards healthcare, implying that that was a higher proportion than in the UK. I argued that roughly the same proportion of salaries in the UK went towards public healthcare.
I did some back-of-an-envelope calculations on this in a similar thread. Unlikely to be 10% of any income below stratospheric levels. Don't forget corporate taxation and employers' National Insurance contributions.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017