|
Politesub53 -> RE: socialist health care (8/29/2010 2:49:08 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
No I never disputed that. I said the numbers you posted dont make sense, and now I will explain why they are apparently so different, when if fact they arent.
Of course they are different, you even admit to guessing at your own figures.
quote:
US government expenditures on health care are extremely heavily weighted toward Medicare, ie over age 65 participants, which is a minimum of 3x as expensive as average costs. So 29% of the population equates to about 90% on an equivalent cost basis. Gross up the 7.3% of GDP from 90% to 100% and you have an truer equivalence at about 8% of GDP for 100% of the population in the US vs 6.9% in the UK. (Using your numbers).
You got a point there brains, we dont care for the elderly and just shoot them at 65.
quote:
You also have to adjust the 6.9% in the UK because it doesnt really cover 100% of the costs. Private costs are around 15% of overall cost in the UK, which is algebraically equivalent to only covering 85% of the "average population", not 100%. Grpss up the 6.9% from 85% to 100% and the comparable numbers are now 8% US vs 8.1% UK.
Based on your assumption of costs and nothing more.
quote:
I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare. Based on the premiums for closing gap in Medicare coverage, the 8% in the US needs to be grossed up by about 12% to about 9.1%
Cant argue with an assumption, as we dont do copay.
quote:
So even assuming NHS pays for everything the comparable numbers are about 9.1% vs 8.1% for equivalent levels and ages of populations. Not even close to the 3.6 times the costs that a rudimentary gross up of 29% of the population would imply.
There you go with caring for them elderly critters again.
quote:
now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality.
No need, I will let you sort out the mistakes in your assumptions first.
|
|
|
|
