• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

There are ways and means......the voter turn out in the US is the lowest in the developed world.....if Dems voted in any numbers they'd win every time.

I support complete numpties having to engage brain and ensure they can vote.

Just walking up and demanding to vote isn't acceptable.
 
There are ways and means......the voter turn out in the US is the lowest in the developed world.....if Dems voted in any numbers they'd win every time.

I support complete numpties having to engage brain and ensure they can vote.

Just walking up and demanding to vote isn't acceptable.

Again, it has NOTHING to do with intelligence. Plenty of 'numpties' get to vote all the time. I'd PREFER an IQ test prior to voting over a photo ID, or at least some kind of test gauging knowledge on current events and issues.
Maybe we should just go back to letting only landowners vote?
 
Not followed this thread much, but voting in Australia works well I think. Being compulsory, it makes you take much more of an interest in politics both locally and globally.

Not sure it would work in a country like the States though. Can't believe it's not compulsory in Canada.
 
Just looked at the numbers on US public healthcare spending vs the UK.

Total Public Spending
US: $1.1 trillion
UK: £0.126 trillion

(numbers from http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ and http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

Per capita
US $3500
UK $3200 (equivalent)

Percentage of GDP
US 7.3%
UK 8%

EDIT: Edited pretty much all the figures, more accurate

The United States already spends more public money than the UK on healthcare by all measures, and you need to more than double all those US figures to get total healthcare spending as public spending accounts for less than half of it. Couldn't believe it when I crunched the numbers that the US spends more than we do, with costs only set to rise with Obamacare on the horizon. However, I'm not sure it can be denied that they get a better overall quality of healthcare, but you'd expect is considering how much they pay!
 
Last edited:
This has been true for a long time, at least since the early 90s. I'm not sure on your numbers for per captia. Your UK source give gives 7.8%. Your US link doesn't work, but I think with all federal (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, etc) and state spending (Medicaid etc) it will be at least 8-9%, possibly around 10%.

The US system has many distortions that make it more expensive. Because many people don't have insurance they don't get preventative care and then fall back on the emergency service which costs a lot more. These costs have to be covered by the hospitals, which increases the costs for paying customers. For instance, the UCLA Medical Centre gets payment for less than 40% of its billings, which means that to break even the charges have to be more than twice what they need to be if everyone pays. The insurance schemes and payment systems create a massive bureaucracy, possibly as much as 1-2% of GDP, that increases costs. Its probably the one example of a private system that makes public services look efficient. Another distortion is in prescription costs, which are far higher than anywhere else in the world for the same drugs and effectively means the US subsidises drug development for the rest of the world. When Bush passed his Medicare expansion (welfare for the richest sector of society!) the Republicans inserted a provision prohibiting Medicare from negotiating a bulk price for drugs. So much for free market price mechanisms.

The end result is that overall the US spends three times (absolute dollars per capita) what the UK does on health care for about the same outcome (e.g. life expectancy). The NHS service is far superior to what the majority of Americans get, despite the propaganda about socialised medicine. Most get more restrictions on access to treatment than with the NHS and have to make co-payments. However, if you have a good plan then you can get far better health care but that is either very expensive or due to type of employment. Some plans, notably that Congress have given themselves, are fantastic and without comparison anywhere in the world. But the average American gets nothing like that, making do with poor plans, high costs and rhetorical claims about being the best in the world.
 
Oops, one too many 'http's on that link. Has been fixed. As for the GDP statistic, I've found the mistake. I googled UK GDP and it gave $2.45 trillion, I must have misread it as £2.45 trillion, a currency exchange issue. My mistake, have edited my above post! The numbers per capita are just total spend divided by population

A question re: state funding, is this not included in the $1.1tn figure in the (now fixed) above link?

I didn't realise Americans didn't generally pay for emergency care. I know theres the law that says Americans can't be refused emergency care but I assumed that they were handed a bill when they leave.

I'm surprised you say the NHS is better than most Americans get, of course that is the case for the uninsured but I assume any insurance will get you at least to NHS level. Is the difference the lack of coverage for things like cancer?
 
Last edited:
All the discussion of the economy and healthcare is trivial. The only thing to consider when voting in this election is one guy wears magic underwear and the other guy doesn't. Which ever way you feel on this vote accordingly because nothing else matters.
 
Oops, one too many 'http's on that link. Has been fixed. As for the GDP statistic, I've found the mistake. I googled UK GDP and it gave $2.45 trillion, I must have misread it as £2.45 trillion, a currency exchange issue. My mistake, have edited my above post! The numbers per capita are just total spend divided by population

A question re: state funding, is this not included in the $1.1tn figure in the (now fixed) above link?

I'm not certain, but isn't that site just federal spending (e.g, budget for FY = federal year?). The federal budget will include considerable payments to states to cover Medicaid, but these have slowly being cut, leaving more burden on the states.

I didn't realise Americans didn't generally pay for emergency care. I know theres the law that says Americans can't be refused emergency care but I assumed that they were handed a bill when they leave.

No, Americans are expected to pay for emergency care. But the poor and uninsured often don't have the money to pay for very expensive treatment. hence the bills go unpaid. I assume its easier to charge everyone else more than pursue people who probably can't pay anyway through the courts.

I'm surprised you say the NHS is better than most Americans get, of course that is the case for the uninsured but I assume any insurance will get you at least to NHS level. Is the difference the lack of coverage for things like cancer?

No, insurance plans for the majority will be worse than NHS levels, while the better plans will be a lot better. Its difficult to generalise as there are so many plans, which will cover different things. All plans will have some exclusions and it will depend on the cost of the plan. Many plans such as HMO plans have substantial co-payments, say around 20%. So you need an relatively minor operation costing $10,000 you pay $2000. You can be expected to pay $100 towards an X-ray, so costs soon mount up. A major operation can cost $100,000 so many people with coverage will struggle to pay the co-payments, which adds to the low return on billing problem. All this adds to the bureaucracy.

An alternative is comprehensive care packages which are essentially like the NHS, but these will vary greatly depending on where you are and who deal with the care. For a while I lived in Minnesota and my package was like an NHS super plus. I had access of Mayo Clinic consultants within a few days and even discretionary operations would be scheduled within a week or so. All covered with no co-payments except for prescriptions. If you have that sort of coverage then its fantastic. In contrast, when in Philadelphia with an HMO plan, I had to wait 2 hours in the emergency room with a suspected broken before they got permission for me to see a nurse or doctor - it turned out I was taken to the wrong hospital for emergency services. And I had to pay a co-payment for the service.
 
Having looked at it, it seems to include local costs too. Pretty sure FY = financial year, and also pretty sure the federal budget isn't over $6tn. Could be wrong though.

Very interesting post, I assume your medical coverage was through an employer?
 
Addendum - the edit feature is messed up again

The total health care costs in the US are usually estimated at around 16-18% of GDP, with nearly half public spending by various levels of geovernment. So your original point about the US public purse spending more than the NHS is correct

I haven't got time now to get primary sources, but the following is from Wikipedia, which cites sources:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), total health care spending in the U.S. was 15.2% of its GDP in 2008, the highest in the world.[3] The Health and Human Services Department expects that the health share of GDP will continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5% of GDP by 2017.[27][28] Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States, 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician/clinical services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 4% to dental, 6% to nursing homes and 3% to home health care, 3% for other retail products, 3% for government public health activities, 7% to administrative costs, 7% to investment, and 6% to other professional services (physical therapists, optometrists, etc).[29]

The Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publishes data on total health care spending in the United States, including both historical levels and future projections.[30] In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the previous year.[31] Spending in 2006 represented 16% of GDP, an increase of 6.7% over 2004 spending. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017.

In 2009, the United States federal, state and local governments, corporations and individuals, together spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care. This amount represented 17.3% of the GDP, up from 16.2% in 2008.[32] Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation,[33] and medical causes were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[52] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending.[62] Per-capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[63]

And food for thought, backing my contention that most people get a bad deal ...

An analysis of the 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey found that the 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending. This reflects spending in 2009, as well.[40] These patterns were stable through the 1970s and 1980s, and some data suggest that they may have been typical of the mid-to-early 20th century as well.[41]
 
Back