Ron Paul #1

Watermark said:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_pub_per_cap-care-funding-public-per-capita


The US spends $2051 per a person in government dollars to cover just the elderly and poor. France spends $1968 to cover everyone, and it does a much better job once your under its care, too. No waiting lists or anything, unlike other systems. I just think we should copy the entire damn plan.
Click to expand...
Per each of the elderly and poor. Not per person in the US. France spends that much to cover every person in France. We do get a tax break because we aren't spending for 300,000,000 people, as we would be if we spent for every person here.

The cost difference would very likely be minimal on a per-person basis, as those that are not poor, are likely on a large part not nearly as sickly as the elderly that are covered and which would skew the per-capita cost when only the poor and elderly are covered.
 
Damo, how do you think public health spending PER CAPITA (as in the whole nation) is calculated? They take the amount the government spends on healthcare. Then they divide that number by our population. Note: not the number of people on the rolls covered. The total population, whether or not everyone is covered.

France spends $1920 per person (as in the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover everyone. We spend $2051 per person (as in this is the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover a small subset of said population (The elderly and poor and veterans).
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Damo, how do you think public health spending PER CAPITA (as in the whole nation) is calculated? They take the amount the government spends on healthcare. Then they divide that number by our population. Note: not the number of people on the rolls covered. The total population, whether or not everyone is covered.

France spends $1920 per person (as in the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover everyone. We spend $2051 per person (as in this is the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover a small subset of said population (The elderly and poor and veterans).
Click to expand...

The doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies are not going to take paycuts. They will not sit idly by as this happens.

Its pretty simple. We will need many more doctors and other healthcare professionals working at market rates. But as of now, the number of doctors allowed into the market place is limited by the government, because, as per usual, the government is in the pocket of the AMA.

So you tell me how we're going to get all those healthcare people to take a huge paycut, and where all the other doctors are going to come from.
 
Obfuscate said:
The stronger and Noisier the Paul campain gets the more those that are afraid of him go into baseless bashing. Man I hope he runs as an independent. Can you say "Jesse Ventura" factor. Ventura won because he got people who don't normally vote to the booths, I think Paul could do the same and actually win..
Click to expand...

Amazing how myopic and delsusional Paul supporters are.

This nation is not clamoring for Ron Paul by any stretch of the imagination.

This man only gets 7% of his campaign donations in his congressional races from the people who actually live in his district. 93% of his fundraising for CD14 have come from outside of CD 14 .. now let's hear you call that "baseless bashing."
 
RStringfield said:
Typical horseshit. And LadyT and the Dems loves Saddam and the terrorist! It's the same argument from a knuckle dragger of another wing.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, because it was Reagan and the republicans making love to Saddam, not the democrats.

They is a plethora of evidence to back up the racist claim on Paul.
 
LadyT said:
You can sit here and deny the facts if you want to: But bottom line is Ron Paul hates black people and children. Well, poor children anyway.
Click to expand...

Rest assured in the knowledge that as soon as the primaries are over, this neanderthal will crawl back into obscurity where he came from.
 
Watermark said:
Damo, how do you think public health spending PER CAPITA (as in the whole nation) is calculated? They take the amount the government spends on healthcare. Then they divide that number by our population. Note: not the number of people on the rolls covered. The total population, whether or not everyone is covered.

France spends $1920 per person (as in the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover everyone. We spend $2051 per person (as in this is the average cost to each taxpayer) to cover a small subset of said population (The elderly and poor and veterans).
Click to expand...
However, when they are speaking on what they spend for insurance, it is based on a per capita basis of receivers.

In this case, the entire population vs. only the elderly and poor.

Please look at the actual numbers. It is spending based on recipients.

Playing with numbers is a regular effect of such politics. One must figure out what the expenditure would be if the recipients were 100% of the US population in order to find out that it would be quite a tax hike if we put forward the same program.
 
Damocles said:
However, when they are speaking on what they spend for insurance, it is based on a per capita basis of receivers.

In this case, the entire population vs. only the elderly and poor.

Please look at the actual numbers. It is spending based on recipients.

Playing with numbers is a regular effect of such politics. One must figure out what the expenditure would be if the recipients were 100% of the US population in order to find out that it would be quite a tax hike if we put forward the same program.
Click to expand...

Where are you making up this shit? Please, Damo, look at the definition:

DEFINITION: Public funding of health care expenditure, in US $ PPP per capita.


Do you understand the meaning of the term "Per capita"?


Like whenever we calculate average income PER CAPITA, we do not leave those with 0 income out of the statistics?


Give me the source of your blatant lies, Damo. You're a fucking idiot and you're trying to twist things.
 
Watermark said:
Where are you making up this shit? Please, Damo, look at the definition:

DEFINITION: Public funding of health care expenditure, in US $ PPP per capita.


Do you understand the meaning of the term "Per capita"?


Like whenever we calculate average income PER CAPITA, we do not leave those with 0 income out of the statistics?


Give me the source of your blatant lies, Damo. You're a fucking idiot and you're trying to twist things.
Click to expand...
You keep conveniently forgetting the recipient portion. We do not spend that much per person overall, we spend that much per person receiving it. Look at the report. It is per capita of receivers that such spending is that high. Actually read the reports, it is per capita of recipients that such numbers come from.

I know it ruins your argument and will therefore attempt to argue this past all logical reality, but it is true that in this case we spend relatively the same per capita on recipients of the Medical Insurance programs. However we do not cover much of our population, and while still spending about the same per recipient we would increase expenditures massively and thus need an increase in taxes to pay for it.
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/gra...er_cap-care-funding-private-per-capita&int=-1


The US spends $2250 privately per capita. This cost is the average private cost for an average individual


The US spends 2051 publicly per capita. This cost is the average cost to each each individual for covering the elderly, poor, and veterans.

If you add that up $4301

Now, here's what nationmaster says is the official cost per person total (private and public):

4,631


Damo, what more am I going to have to lodge into your foot thick dumbass skull? Don't talk about stuff like this you ignorant fuck.
 
Damocles said:
You keep conveniently forgetting the recipient portion. We do not spend that much per person overall, we spend that much per person receiving it. Look at the report. It is per capita of receivers that such spending is that high. Actually read the reports, it is per capita of recipients that such numbers come from.

I know it ruins your argument and will therefore attempt to argue this past all logical reality, but it is true that in this case we spend relatively the same per capita on recipients of the Medical Insurance programs. However we do not cover much of our population, and while still spending about the same per recipient we would increase expenditures massively and thus need an increase in taxes to pay for it.
Click to expand...

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT ANYWHERE YOU IGNORANT FUCK!!!!!

POST WHERE IT SAYS THAT YOU IGNORANT FUCKTARD!!!!
 
owned.jpg
 
Warren said:
Keep it up Damo. I think WM is on the verge of implosion.
Click to expand...
Definitely. He's getting all mad.

We do, total per capita spend about twice what France does total per capita. That is clearly overspending. I agree, but it certainly isn't the level of total retardation that he wants us to believe we have reached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top