Will the Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up?

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

**cactus before this with some lies, damned lies and damning statistics

ibis wrote:

The 4K figure per capita is the total expenditure on health in the economy. It doesn't represent anybody's personal direct cost.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing? Presumably the Americans don't pay tax directly into the health system as we do, it is paid privately. This amounts to the same thing surely or are you saying that in our case that cost (around 4k per head) is spread around in such a way as to lever it from the more fortunate and deliver it to the less fortunate - swings and roundabouts ?

Pretty much - which, in turn, is the root of the libertarian objection: rich people in Irish society pay the health costs of the poor as well as their own, and the healthy pay the costs of the sick.

So why don't you - ibis the Rich - just sit back and let Tony/Sean the Richer pay for yourself and your family?

What do you get out of VHI that I'm missing?

youngdan wrote:

If you want to have a discussion fine but if you prefer to act stupid that is fine too.

What's to discuss? Twice as much of US GDP gets sucked into healthcare compared to Irish healthcare - three times as much as in the UK. That's an across the board, all private and public spending total. The results of the US spending 2-3 times as much definitely isn't 2-3 times as good. On the fullest range of indicators there's little or no evidence that the US gets anything out of that extra expenditure.

Now, if your system costs twice as much as mine to achieve the same result, I hope you'll excuse me concluding that your system is worse than mine. And here we are - your system does cost twice as much, and I do conclude that your system is worse. If I then look around to see what systems are cheaper, I find that systems even less like your system than mine is are cheaper yet! Heavens, what conclusion can I possibly draw?

Pure free-marketism, like any other 'pure' system, doesn't work across the board. Health care is somewhere it really doesn't work, and you're wasting your time trying to make it look like it does.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

**cactus before this with some lies, damned lies and damning statistics

ibis wrote:

The 4K figure per capita is the total expenditure on health in the economy. It doesn't represent anybody's personal direct cost.

Doesn't it amount to the same thing? Presumably the Americans don't pay tax directly into the health system as we do, it is paid privately. This amounts to the same thing surely or are you saying that in our case that cost (around 4k per head) is spread around in such a way as to lever it from the more fortunate and deliver it to the less fortunate - swings and roundabouts ?

Pretty much - which, in turn, is the root of the libertarian objection: rich people in Irish society pay the health costs of the poor as well as their own, and the healthy pay the costs of the sick.

So why don't you - ibis the Rich - just sit back and let Tony/Sean the Richer pay for yourself and your family?

What do you get out of VHI that I'm missing?

Well, we don't have an NHS. In the UK, I probably wouldn't bother to have private insurance.

I am not talking about the health care system in the US. I am talking about private health care. I am talking about a household that can buy private health care in the US for about half what is spent per capita in Ireland.

Returning to my origonal statement, that it would be cheaper for everyone in Ireland to buy private health insurance here and fly out for annual checkups and a visit to Disney.

Anyway the Welfare State back there, and indeed here, is finished. That is why we are being pushed into a global financial system at full speed. Those worried about medical cards should be worried about their extinction instead. They think a garden od Eden is ahead.

youngdan wrote:

I am not talking about the health care system in the US. I am talking about private health care. I am talking about a household that can buy private health care in the US for about half what is spent per capita in Ireland.

Returning to my origonal statement, that it would be cheaper for everyone in Ireland to buy private health insurance here and fly out for annual checkups and a visit to Disney.

And that's the point - it wouldn't be. One way or another, the US pays the full cost of US healthcare, and Ireland pays the full cost of Irish healthcare. Therefore, if spending in the US per capita is twice the Irish spend, then US healthcare is twice as expensive. What you're confusing with that, as far as I can see, is the direct cost to a given individual of buying private health cover - the 'sticker price'. That will vary with the individual in question, the extent of the state healthcare provision, and so on - so it is always possible by picking the right individual to find someone who would be better off in the US. However, the population on average cannot be, because healthcare spending per capita is twice what it is in Ireland.

youngdan wrote:

Anyway the Welfare State back there, and indeed here, is finished. That is why we are being pushed into a global financial system at full speed. Those worried about medical cards should be worried about their extinction instead. They think a garden od Eden is ahead.

Um, no. The global financial system is the one that appears to be finished, taking with it the libertarian idea that unregulated financial markets are a good idea - and probably heralding a return to the Keynesian economics that produced the welfare state. What are you smoking this evening? Crow?

We shall see. If you think the financial markets are unregulated then you don't know the markets. How could the economy be free with the Fed tinkering with the money supply and interest rates.

Back to the health issue. I told you I am talking about private health care. You buy your insurance and if you get sick your bill is paid. Simple.

You want to talk about public health care. You are like a parrot talking about public care. What is plain to be seen is that it would be cheaper for everyone in Ireland to have private care here.

You don't want to see what is as plain as pie.

youngdan wrote:

We shall see. If you think the financial markets are unregulated then you don't know the markets. How could the economy be free with the Fed tinkering with the money supply and interest rates.

Back to the health issue. I told you I am talking about private health care. You buy your insurance and if you get sick your bill is paid. Simple.

You want to talk about public health care. You are like a parrot talking about public care. What is plain to be seen is that it would be cheaper for everyone in Ireland to have private care here.

You don't want to see what is as plain as pie.

I've a good deal of respect for your opinion on the financial business, but I don't think you even begin to understand the health care question. Why not apply your classic logic to it - if the US spends $7,500 per capita on health care, who is spending that?

What a pair of cold so and sos...number crunching away. Child mortality in the US is TWICE what it is in Ireland and we're still one of the less well-performing public systems. I would go with the best system even if it costs more (which it doesn't). Spend a bit less on weapons of mass destruction, why don't you?

Youngdan is rightly worrying about extinction. If we make it past the next few years and the climate change doesn't get us, we will have an extra two years life expectancy on him (Youndan - come home!)

cactus flower wrote:

What a pair of cold so and sos...number crunching away. Child mortality in the US is TWICE what it is in Ireland and we're still one of the less well-performing public systems. I would go with the best system even if it costs more (which it doesn't). Spend a bit less on weapons of mass destruction, why don't you?

Youngdan is rightly worrying about extinction. If we make it past the next few years and the climate change doesn't get us, we will have an extra two years life expectancy on him (Youndan - come home!)

Failing to crunch the numbers allows people to choose a system ideologically, which is what produces the increased child mortality. Being logical is not always bad, cf.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What a pair of cold so and sos...number crunching away. Child mortality in the US is TWICE what it is in Ireland and we're still one of the less well-performing public systems. I would go with the best system even if it costs more (which it doesn't). Spend a bit less on weapons of mass destruction, why don't you?

Youngdan is rightly worrying about extinction. If we make it past the next few years and the climate change doesn't get us, we will have an extra two years life expectancy on him (Youndan - come home!)

Failing to crunch the numbers allows people to choose a system ideologically, which is what produces the increased child mortality. Being logical is not always bad, cf.

I know Ibis, I just wanted an excuse to look at these gorgeous babies. And it's worth remembering what all the figures are about.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What a pair of cold so and sos...number crunching away. Child mortality in the US is TWICE what it is in Ireland and we're still one of the less well-performing public systems. I would go with the best system even if it costs more (which it doesn't). Spend a bit less on weapons of mass destruction, why don't you?

Youngdan is rightly worrying about extinction. If we make it past the next few years and the climate change doesn't get us, we will have an extra two years life expectancy on him (Youndan - come home!)

Failing to crunch the numbers allows people to choose a system ideologically, which is what produces the increased child mortality. Being logical is not always bad, cf.

I know Ibis, I just wanted an excuse to look at these gorgeous babies. And it's worth remembering what all the figures are about.

Now you're tempting me to post pictures of morbidly obese people.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

What a pair of cold so and sos...number crunching away. Child mortality in the US is TWICE what it is in Ireland and we're still one of the less well-performing public systems. I would go with the best system even if it costs more (which it doesn't). Spend a bit less on weapons of mass destruction, why don't you?

Youngdan is rightly worrying about extinction. If we make it past the next few years and the climate change doesn't get us, we will have an extra two years life expectancy on him (Youndan - come home!)

Failing to crunch the numbers allows people to choose a system ideologically, which is what produces the increased child mortality. Being logical is not always bad, cf.

I know Ibis, I just wanted an excuse to look at these gorgeous babies. And it's worth remembering what all the figures are about.

Now you're tempting me to post pictures of morbidly obese people.

Off topic. The babies are perfect.

The 7500 per capita is spent by everyone so the individual paying 12000 for private care is paying 19500 total. Same thing if he sends his kids to private school. He is paying fees plus his property taxes goes to paying for the public school system as well.

There is no industry where government interference has raised costs as much as health care. It costs about a billion dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA and forget about safety as the saga with vioxx showed as it killed hundreds of thousands.

Get rid of both public health systems and let competition reduce costs. Then if there were less able members of society unable to pay let the social security system directly pay the private health insurance.

This situation of 4000 euros per capita and crap care at the end of the day belongs in Cuba. When the government is paying of course the bills are huge. I would do the same thing if I were selling a product where money was no object.

That is my final thoughts on the subject

youngdan wrote:

The 7500 per capita is spent by everyone so the individual paying 12000 for private care is paying 19500 total. Same thing if he sends his kids to private school. He is paying fees plus his property taxes goes to paying for the public school system as well.

No, the 7500 covers both private and public costs - it is the total amount of spending on healthcare per capita.

youngdan wrote:

There is no industry where government interference has raised costs as much as health care. It costs about a billion dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA and forget about safety as the saga with vioxx showed as it killed hundreds of thousands.

Get rid of both public health systems and let competition reduce costs. Then if there were less able members of society unable to pay let the social security system directly pay the private health insurance.

This situation of 4000 euros per capita and crap care at the end of the day belongs in Cuba. When the government is paying of course the bills are huge. I would do the same thing if I were selling a product where money was no object.

That is my final thoughts on the subject

I'd have to call them reflexes rather than thoughts. Despite the way in which health care systems line up, with the more public the cheaper and the more private the more expensive, the problem, according to you, must lie in the public element. Of course!

Here's a little thought experiment that might help you:

x + y = 6
2x + y = 7
x + 2y = 11

Which term is bigger, x, or y?

I have to say I couldn't wish for a better example of ideologically induced blindness - well, Creationists, maybe, but it's a toss-up.

Point of information:
Total expenditure on health per capita in Ireland (Intl $, 2005): 3,125€
(WHO 2006)

I have an uncle in the US who pays 30,000 dollars a year for health insurance.

I wonder how much Ron Paul charges to deliver a baby

Point of information 2: the babies are twins.

The facts are the facts. Private care is 12000 dollars and Ireland pays 20000 euros so fly them out.

youngdan wrote:

The facts are the facts. Private care is 12000 dollars and Ireland pays 20000 euros so fly them out.

Where did you get those figures youngdan?

In 2006 according to the OECD the total expenditure per capita, of US$ purchasing power parity, on health was 6714 in the USA and 3082 in Ireland.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The facts are the facts. Private care is 12000 dollars and Ireland pays 20000 euros so fly them out.

Where did you get those figures youngdan?

He's using on the one hand the amount you pay for healthcare insurance for a family in the US: $12,000 - and on the other he's using the total cost of healthcare to the Irish economy: $4000/capita times 5 for a family.

The correct figures to compare are:

Cost of healthcare insurance to an Irish family: €1800 in my case, more for a family of five = €3,000/year
Cost of healthcare insurance to a US family of five: $12,000/year

or

Spending on healthcare per capita in Ireland: $4,000 (apx 9% of GDP)
Spending on healthcare per capita in the US: $7,500 (apx 15.2% of GDP)

So youngdan is comparing apples and oranges, because it is not possible for him to accept that public healthcare (public anything) can be cheaper than the private alternative.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The facts are the facts. Private care is 12000 dollars and Ireland pays 20000 euros so fly them out.

Where did you get those figures youngdan?

He's using on the one hand the amount you pay for healthcare insurance for a family in the US: $12,000 - and on the other he's using the total cost of healthcare to the Irish economy: $4000/capita times 5 for a family.

The correct figures to compare are:

Cost of healthcare insurance to an Irish family: €1800 in my case, more for a family of five = €3,000/year
Cost of healthcare insurance to a US family of five: $12,000/year

or

Spending on healthcare per capita in Ireland: $4,000 (apx 9% of GDP)
Spending on healthcare per capita in the US: $7,500 (apx 15.2% of GDP)

So youngdan is comparing apples and oranges, because it is not possible for him to accept that public healthcare (public anything) can be cheaper than the private alternative.

Where did the 4,000 dollars figure come from? Its different from the WHO figure. And also the US Insurance figure - did i miss the source?

What I am saying is that it would be cheaper to put everyone in Ireland on a private health plan here and fly them out. The figures speak for themselves.

You are contradicting yourself. You pay 1800 euros. Does that cover your medical services for you. If it does then it is a hell of a lot cheaper than 4000 per capita which the public system costs.

It wouldn't though. Because you are comparing apples with oranges.

Let's look at various scenarios:

1) We give everyone in Ireland private health insurance at the current cost:

Result - owing to the fact that private health insurance currently piggybacks on the public system the cost of private health insurance would skyrocket. Net result - your figures, which are not based on the model you are proposing, would become irrelevant.

2) We give everyone in Ireland private health insurance and fly them out of Ireland:

Result - we would inundate other health systems increasing the burden which they have to pay. Aside from severely straining relations with these states, it would inevitably result in levies being imposed by them and an increase in costs for us. Net result - your figures, which are not based on the model you are proposing, would become irrelevant.

Conclusion - the figures you are putting up reflect the current system combined with an overly, and incorrectly, simplistic notion of what it would cost to have a different system. You are ignoring all the other issues which would come into play if such a system was instigated. Such other issues would render the current figures useless.

youngdan wrote:

What I am saying is that it would be cheaper to put everyone in Ireland on a private health plan here and fly them out. The figures speak for themselves.

You are contradicting yourself. You pay 1800 euros. Does that cover your medical services for you. If it does then it is a hell of a lot cheaper than 4000 per capita which the public system costs.

The $4000 is the total amount of healthcare spending per capita in Ireland. Not spending by government. Not the cost of an insurance premium. It is the sum total of everybody's insurance premiums, direct spending not covered by insurance, and government spending. The $7,439 figure for the US is the same. It's the total cost of healthcare in the economy. It has nothing to do with your health insurance premium. Nobody, except by accident, pays exactly 4K.

The $7,439 figure is the 2007 figure from the US National Health Expenditures forecast. By the way, that's projected to rise pretty steeply. The total expected burden on the US economy of healthcare is projected to be 19.2% by 2017.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

In the first paragraph you suggest that I am mistaken about the Irish health costing 20000 and then in the next paragraph you say it costs 4000 per capita. Therefore we agree on 20000 for a family of 5 like I said.

Now what do you get for your payment of 1800 as it seems my assumption that this pays for private cover for your family is incorrect

Here are some figures:

Ireland (WHO website)

Total population: 4,221,000


Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 34,730


Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82


Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 68/72


Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 4


Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 88/56


Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 3,125


Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 8.2


USA

Statistics:

Total population: 302,841,000


Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070


Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71


Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8


Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80


Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2005): 6,347

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2005): 15.2


Figures are for 2006 unless indicated. Source: World Health Statistics 2008

Well, that pretty well nails it.

http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/

I'm happy to stick with these figures unless someone shows me they are wrong and offers me a link to a better source. They show that US heavily privatised health care with an impoverished public sector is twice as costly and probably less effective than the present Irish system that youngdan wants us to ditch. Do you have shares in a Health insurance company youngdan?

Ron Paul apparently wants to get rid of all public health services and throw people on the mercy of charities. The result would undoubtedly be a sharp decline in life expectancy. Most people would prefer to pay more tax for the security of a good public health service.

You are pretending to be stupid again. You are incorrect. The 4000 figure is the amount the Irish government spent on health care in 2007 taken from the budget statement.

The 12000 dollars is the cost of private health insurance here for a family of 5. Flying them out would be cheaper.

What is spent here on public is immaterial as I would be putting them on private health insurance.


JohnFas, Ibis refuses to answer my genuine query. What service is gotten by a payment of 1800 euro which he mentions for himself. You say that private health piggybacks on the public health system. How does this work and am I to conclude that his payment does not mean what I would assume it to mean