Interesting statistics

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/gra...per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita&int=-1

If you divide the amount our government pays in healthcare by our total population, and divide the amount France's government pays in healthcare by it's total population, the amount is equal.

France covers everyone - we don't. We pay just as much IN TAXES to treat just a small subset of our population, as they do to treat everyone.

Now tell me how a single payer system isn't cost effective?
 
Damo says the statistics are per a recipient (instead of per capita, as stated on the page).

Do me a favor guys. Go over to the link, and use the "find" feature in your browser to search for the word "recipient" in the page. Whenever you realize that it's not in the page, tell Damo what an ignorant fuck he is for assuming stuff and talking about it like it's fact.

This is the amount each one of us spends in taxes.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain this Damo:

owned.jpg



I thought yous aid in the "reports" that it was per a recipient? Not per capita, like clearly stated? Apparently, nationmaster, and the OCED that nationmaster gets its statistics from, just feel like lying. It's all a Jewish conspiracy.
 
Watermark said:
Damo says the statistics are per a recipient (instead of per capita, as stated on the page).

Do me a favor guys. Go over to the link, and use the "find" feature in your browser to search for the word "recipient" in the page. Whenever you realize that it's not in the page, tell Damo what an ignorant fuck he is for assuming stuff and talking about it like it's fact.

This is the amount each one of us spends in taxes.
Click to expand...
It is in the further stats. If you take the expenditures, you will find that it adds up to only the recipients.

Start clicking the linkage on your page. You will see we are 2nd in government funding for abortions, and then on and on. It is expenditure per recipient that they are speaking of.

Seriously, we'd have to be retarded to spend as much as France per total per capita and only cover less than 1/4 of the population.

The reality is the stats reflect that it is the net receiver per capita that they measure.
 
If you look at the total, together, we spend about twice the amount as France.

This is why I consistently say we should look at France's program. We do not, as your data would attempt to make us believe spend over 4 times the amount per capita of population, for insurance. It doesn't happen.

About twice is about 50% too high, but it certainly isn't reaching the levels of retardation that you attempt to portray.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
 
2015 * 300,000,000 = 615,300,000,000.

That's our approximate health budget, Damo. Now tell me, if it isn't public spending per our entire population, why does reversing the operation and multiplying 2015 times our population give us our approximate government health budget?

If it is as you say, then 2015 times 75 million should approximately equal our health budget. 151,124,000,000. Are you saying that our health budget is about 150 billion? Why, our medicare budget alone is larger than that. Not counting SCHIP, the veterans affairs adminiatraion, or medicaid.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
If you look at the total, together, we spend about twice the amount as France.

This is why I consistently say we should look at France's program. We do not, as your data would attempt to make us believe spend over 4 times the amount per capita of population, for insurance. It doesn't happen.

About twice is about 50% too high, but it certainly isn't reaching the levels of retardation that you attempt to portray.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
Click to expand...

We spend twice per capita, that's true. But our public health expenditure is 45% of that. Or, about 80% much as France spends on its entire population, public and private.
 
Watermark said:
2015 * 300,000,000 = 615,300,000,000.

That's our approximate health budget, Damo. Now tell me, if it isn't public spending per our entire population, why does reversing the operation and multiplying 2015 times our population give us our approximate government health budget?

If it is as you say, then 2015 times 75 million should approximately equal our health budget. 151,124,000,000. Are you saying that our health budget is about 150 billion? Why, our medicare budget alone is larger than that. Not counting SCHIP, the veterans affairs adminiatraion, or medicaid.
Click to expand...
This is the total outlay entire, including all things such as the FDA.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hhs.html

Here, look at this. 700 Billion next year, including all things, not just coverage.

If you take only insurance coverage, then divide it by the number of recipients you get about the same that France spends to cover all if its recipients.

You are using the "health care per capita" funding stats to multiply it by 300 Million and get the TOTAL the US spends on EVERYTHING, not just on care.

Do you get it yet? Your numbers are skewed because you do not read what the statistics mean. The total per capita we spend on "health care" is not the same as total public spending on everything that has to do with health that is not 'care', such as research, food testing, inspecting of cargo, etc.

You take a stat that gives a per capita number that we spend to insure the people who receive that insurance to get the "care". Our total expenditure is a different number, even when added all together. One is about "care" the other is a total of all spending on "health". Including all spending on the FDA who go after the drug dealers, etc.
 
Either way, we spend too much. The reality is we spend twice what France does for care. Of course, it does include, as I stated cost for the FDA total, which includes Drug Agents, etc. But heck, we spend too much anyway.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/gra...per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita&int=-1

If you divide the amount our government pays in healthcare by our total population, and divide the amount France's government pays in healthcare by it's total population, the amount is equal.

France covers everyone - we don't. We pay just as much IN TAXES to treat just a small subset of our population, as they do to treat everyone.

Now tell me how a single payer system isn't cost effective?
Click to expand...
You have the right in America NOT to pay for healthcare.

Next, as any doctor here will tell you, malpractice insurance has soared and is the biggest reason for price increases, this is because of lawsuits, especially ease of suing and scope of award that was enabled after the "Patients Rights Act" had a de facto effect of cutting off a lot of cheaper healthcare options. Yet public systems are largely immune to lawsuits as the government never makes it easy for itself to get sued.

Finally quality of care is vastly different, especially in regards to waiting times, you wait far less amount of time in America. As one key example, we all face plenty of heatwaves as you can attest to in Mississippi, yet do you ever remember a large amount of people dying from them for lack of healthcare?
Yet this is exactly what happened in the French healthcare system with over 3000 dead bodies who were awaiting their "free" healthcare:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/paris.heatwave/

In a private for profit system, healthcare workers welcome more business as it means more revenue. With public healthcare, they get paid the same no matter what and have no incentive to reduce waiting times.

Socialism kills, no matter what good intent or desire to keep up with the "progress" of Europe.
 
OMGZ AMERICA THANKYOU FOR LETTING ME NOT GET HEALTHCARE, EVEN THOUGH I STILL HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH AS FRANCE IN TAXES TO NOT GET IT. THIS IS SO AWESOME.
 
Finally quality of care is vastly different, especially in regards to waiting times, you wait far less amount of time in America. As one key example, we all face plenty of heatwaves as you can attest to in Mississippi, yet do you ever remember a large amount of people dying from them for lack of healthcare?
Yet this is exactly what happened in the French healthcare system with over 3000 dead bodies who were awaiting their "free" healthcare:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...aris.heatwave/

Those people in France died because of the global warming you pretend doesn't exist. France is a place that has not traditionally needed air conditioners. Now it needs them. I guess the free market will solve global warming.

Hell, we'd have deaths up the yazoo in Mississippi if we didn't have air conditioners, it's just that our climate hasn't changed so radically.
 
And it's beyond stupid for you to say that France's far superior healthcare system caused a heatwave. Most Parisian buildings do not have air conditioners. I spend more time waiting on doctors than people in France. Just continue your ignorant lie that single-payer healthcare systems need waiting lists, don't you. Dano knows so much more than the WHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top