Will the Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up?

youngdan wrote:

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

Are you telling me that the US spends twice the amount spent by Ireland per capita on public health ?
Apologies if I missed them, but I've looked back over the thread and can't find links from Ibis or yourself for the figures you are giving. Are they there somewhere?

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.

I'd just like to query this point, are you saying we shouldn't test drugs? For all the ones that slip the net I'm sure plenty more are caught. This sounds like a return to quackery of the highest order, and the market has no means of countering it (bar letting potential customers die).

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

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

Are you telling me that the US spends twice the amount spent by Ireland per capita on public health ?
Apologies if I missed them, but I've looked back over the thread and can't find links from Ibis or yourself for the figures you are giving. Are they there somewhere?

The US does indeed spend twice as much per capita on health, overall. youngdan's figure of €4,000 per capita derives from the 2008 Budget, which allocates €16.335 billion to the Department of Health and Children, the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Divided by 4.25 million population, that gives government spending of €3843 per head - roughly €4K. He then compares this to the cost of private health insurance in the US, and concludes that US health care is cheaper.

Unfortunately, the amount of money set aside in the Budget for those departments isn't the same as health care spending. youngdan's calculation is the equivalent of taking the Budget allocation for the Dept of Transport and comparing it to the cost of car insurance.

I don't know Ibis. Surely the vast bulk of that is health related?

So say Irish public and private together cost €5,000 per capita.
Do we have an equivalent figure for the US?

As if things weren't bad enough now 905 wants to know about testing drugs. You are lucky if you know nothing about the FDA is all I can say.

http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html

This will give you the jist of it and why a box of cancer pills cost 360 dollars here ane 60 dollars in Germany. The cost of bringing a drug to market costs a billion, the space shuttle cost less than that.

Now Ibis is dodging and weaving even worse and saying that the tax money spent on health in Ireland is not 4000 euro per capita even though a few posts ago he said it was. He is unwilling to say what his 1800 euros gets him in return.

Cactus, my contention is that private care in the US is cheaper than the taxpayer cost of the Irish health care system. It would in effect be cheaper to scrap the entire thing.

What is spent on private coverage in Ireland and public care in the US has no bearing on anything because Paul would privatize the health system here.

He is a doctor himself and he would get rid of the FDA as soon as he was finished with the Federal Reserve.

youngdan wrote:

As if things weren't bad enough now 905 wants to know about testing drugs. You are lucky if you know nothing about the FDA is all I can say.

http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html

This will give you the jist of it and why a box of cancer pills cost 360 dollars here ane 60 dollars in Germany. The cost of bringing a drug to market costs a billion, the space shuttle cost less than that.

Now Ibis is dodging and weaving even worse and saying that the tax money spent on health in Ireland is not 4000 euro per capita even though a few posts ago he said it was. He is unwilling to say what his 1800 euros gets him in return.

Cactus, my contention is that private care in the US is cheaper than the taxpayer cost of the Irish health care system. It would in effect be cheaper to scrap the entire thing.

What is spent on private coverage in Ireland and public care in the US has no bearing on anything because Paul would privatize the health system here.

He is a doctor himself and he would get rid of the FDA as soon as he was finished with the Federal Reserve.

What about people who can't afford free market private health care ?

Yup our testing programmes are much better than America's. Johnfás' grandfather set up the main one .

European Pharmacopoeia

cactus flower wrote:

I don't know Ibis. Surely the vast bulk of that is health related?

A lot of it will be, but there's a lot of regulatory spending in there which isn't in the available comparative figures.

cactus flower wrote:

So say Irish public and private together cost €5,000 per capita.
Do we have an equivalent figure for the US?

Unfortunately not. That's what makes youngdan's comparisons useless - he's not comparing like with like. He's comparing the government spend in Ireland with a private insurance premium in the US. Calculating actual health care costs across the economy is rather a lot of number-crunching, not just taking a figure out of the Budget, particularly if you include purchasing power parity.

Still, I suppose if you wanted to do back-of-envelope calculations, government spending as a proportion of total healthcare spending was about 76% here, and about 56% in the US. That would give you a figure of €5057 per head here (€3843/0.76), comprising €3843 public spending, and €1213 private insurance plus uncovered costs. In the US, it would give you, assuming the same sort of calculation, and reckoning an individual premium at $4,400 (source), total healthcare costs of $10,000 per individual, with $5,600 provided by government spending.

Essentially, that calculation assumes that the private insurance premiums plus uncovered costs cover the gap between public spending on health and total spending on health. In neither case, I suspect, is it actually right, but at least it is a comparable calculation.

Rather more to the point, Irish health spending, while still below US levels, is rising in their direction, and quite rapidly:



So, to bang another nail in the coffin, as we have privatised health over the last couple of governments, our health costs have risen dramatically. Admittedly, some of that is down to the one-way ratchet of our civil service, but then the US also has very high regulatory and administrative costs. Some of it, though, is the result of following the US model, which is frankly out of control.

The theory would be that with less taxes all round the number unable to pay would be a lot lower.

However lets say that in Ireland some lad just could not cut it. Then would it not be far better for the social workers to pay his premium directly to the private insurer.

Ireland now is a bananaland where the government is running from a half arsed bit of fury from the plebs on one side and the voting bloc of medical employees on the other. Same situation with the teachers. It is a joke.

The fluckers should be happy to have a job and I would fire the whole lot of them the next time they start crying and bring in Indians to do the job.

The problem with you Ibis is you don't want to compare your public system with the private system because a blind man can see the private system is a lot cheaper and needless to say far better.

Quote :

Now Ibis is dodging and weaving even worse and saying that the tax money spent on health in Ireland is not 4000 euro per capita even though a few posts ago he said it was. He is unwilling to say what his 1800 euros gets him in return.

No, I'm pointing out that you're not comparing like with like, and haven't done at any point. Our system is mainly-public, your system is half and half - but you want to compare the public costs of one with the private costs of the other, and that isn't a relevant comparison. You're comparing part of one system with a different part of another system, and your inability to grasp this makes you think that I am weaving.

What we're talking about here, which as I say you seem unable to grasp, is the total cost to the economy of providing the level of health care in the general population. We have plenty of comparative figures for that, and they all tell the same story - the US is grossly over-priced compared to universal free healthcare systems.

The reason my insurance premium is lower here is simple - the government provides a larger proportion of healthcare spending here than in the US. Therefore, funnily enough, comparing an Irish premium with a US premium shows the Irish premium as cheaper, because it's a smaller part of the total healthcare spending here. Do you see?

youngdan wrote:

The problem with you Ibis is you don't want to compare your public system with the private system because a blind man can see the private system is a lot cheaper and needless to say far better.

Actually, youngdan, only an ideologically blind man like yourself can come to that conclusion.

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

The problem with you Ibis is you don't want to compare your public system with the private system because a blind man can see the private system is a lot cheaper and needless to say far better.

Actually, youngdan, only an ideologically blind man like yourself can come to that conclusion.

Indeed. The US system is one of the worst of the developed world. It's also the most costly as you have struggled to make clear.

This is a Ron Paul thread and we are talking about getting rid of the public system in both countries because everyone agrees that the private system here is both cheaper and better than the public system in either country.

You are trying to compare 2 useless expensive systems.

If you think that lying on a trolley in Ireland is better that private health care in the US then the best of luck to you if you get sick

I think the poor person lying on a trolley in a fully equipped teaching hospital in Dublin is evidently in a better position than the poor person in the USA who asks the ambulance man to drop them home rather than to the hospital because they don't have medicare.

johnfás wrote:

I think the poor person lying on a trolley in a fully equipped teaching hospital in Dublin is evidently in a better position than the poor person in the USA who asks the ambulance man to drop them home rather than to the hospital because they don't have medicare.

And the Irish and US health systems aren't exactly the Mae West. We should be looking at the French and Austrian systems and seeing how we can adapt those systems to ours so that we can improve our own to something comparable.

If anyone wants to compare like with like, the WHO figures from the link I posted previously break down like this:

United States of America
Indicator Value (year)
External resources for health as percentage of total expenditure on health 0.0 (2005)
General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 45.1 (2005)
General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure 21.8 (2005)
Out-of-pocket expenditure as percentage of private expenditure on health 23.90 (2005)
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ? 2862.0 (2005)
Per capita government expenditure on health(PPP int. $) 2862.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health (PPP int. $) ? 6350.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 6350.0 (2005)
Private expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 54.9 (2005)
Private prepaid plans as percentage of private expenditure on health 66.3 (2005)
Social security expenditure on health as percentage of general government expenditure on health 28.8 (2005)
Total expenditure on health as percentage of gross domestic product ? 15.2 (2005)

Ireland
Indicator Value (year)
External resources for health as percentage of total expenditure on health ? 0.0 (2005)
General government expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 79.5 (2005)
General government expenditure on health as percentage of total government expenditure ? 19.0 (2005)
Out-of-pocket expenditure as percentage of private expenditure on health ? 59.30 (2005)
Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 3173.0 (2005)
Per capita government expenditure on health(PPP int. $) 2481.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health (PPP int. $) 3122.0 (2005)
Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) 3993.0 (2005)
Private expenditure on health as percentage of total expenditure on health 20.5 (2005)
Private prepaid plans as percentage of private expenditure on health 33.3 (2005)
Social security expenditure on health as percentage of general government expenditure on health 0.6 (2005)
Total expenditure on health as percentage of gross domestic product 8.2 (2005 )

Americans spent more or less twice as much on health care as we did, and they didn't live as long.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

I think the poor person lying on a trolley in a fully equipped teaching hospital in Dublin is evidently in a better position than the poor person in the USA who asks the ambulance man to drop them home rather than to the hospital because they don't have medicare.

And the Irish and US health systems aren't exactly the Mae West. We should be looking at the French and Austrian systems and seeing how we can adapt those systems to ours so that we can improve our own to something comparable.

In Spain the health is free still - pay 228/month social security and that does the family. Of course theres no dole to speak of for me here. Also the spanish health service runs on very very low salaries. A doctor with 10 years experience could still be earning about 35k and that would be including working shift time! The quality is probably lower as well. The free Haelth system however is not expected to last another 10 years, when the pensioner bubble hits. All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

Respvblica wrote:

All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

The financial pressure doesn't exist in this country because we have the youngest population in Europe. We aren't as old and indigent as our European brothers and sisters.

Respvblica wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

I think the poor person lying on a trolley in a fully equipped teaching hospital in Dublin is evidently in a better position than the poor person in the USA who asks the ambulance man to drop them home rather than to the hospital because they don't have medicare.

And the Irish and US health systems aren't exactly the Mae West. We should be looking at the French and Austrian systems and seeing how we can adapt those systems to ours so that we can improve our own to something comparable.

In Spain the health is free still - pay 228/month social security and that does the family. Of course theres no dole to speak of for me here. Also the spanish health service runs on very very low salaries. A doctor with 10 years experience could still be earning about 35k and that would be including working shift time! The quality is probably lower as well. The free Haelth system however is not expected to last another 10 years, when the pensioner bubble hits. All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

Good deal of truth in that. However, a large part of what makes the pension bill so enormous is that if you're pensioned off at 65, you can expect to live another 15 years or so - for the first ten or so of which an awful lot of modern OAPs are pretty healthy. My father didn't retire from full-time work until he was 75, and assuming I have his health, I don't imagine I will either. Pensions aren't intended to be an after-work reward, but a way of preventing avoidable misery in old age. That particular sacred cow will need to be sacrificed.

Part time work would be a happy compromise, if we could manage it.

ibis wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

I think the poor person lying on a trolley in a fully equipped teaching hospital in Dublin is evidently in a better position than the poor person in the USA who asks the ambulance man to drop them home rather than to the hospital because they don't have medicare.

And the Irish and US health systems aren't exactly the Mae West. We should be looking at the French and Austrian systems and seeing how we can adapt those systems to ours so that we can improve our own to something comparable.

In Spain the health is free still - pay 228/month social security and that does the family. Of course theres no dole to speak of for me here. Also the spanish health service runs on very very low salaries. A doctor with 10 years experience could still be earning about 35k and that would be including working shift time! The quality is probably lower as well. The free Haelth system however is not expected to last another 10 years, when the pensioner bubble hits. All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

Good deal of truth in that. However, a large part of what makes the pension bill so enormous is that if you're pensioned off at 65, you can expect to live another 15 years or so - for the first ten or so of which an awful lot of modern OAPs are pretty healthy. My father didn't retire from full-time work until he was 75, and assuming I have his health, I don't imagine I will either. Pensions aren't intended to be an after-work reward, but a way of preventing avoidable misery in old age. That particular sacred cow will need to be sacrificed.

I completely agree.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

The financial pressure doesn't exist in this country because we have the youngest population in Europe. We aren't as old and indigent as our European brothers and sisters.

Yes we are still a relatively young population but emigration could hurt us in this regard later down the line. Hopefully not, but lets take care that we have a strucure that can work regardless of our demographic profile and economic position. Theres no use fighting for a world class health system if theres no money to pay for it.

Respvblica wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

All over Europe the welfare state is going to come under huge pressure. I think that the financial pressure was somehow masked by all those receipts the governments got in property sales.

The financial pressure doesn't exist in this country because we have the youngest population in Europe. We aren't as old and indigent as our European brothers and sisters.

Yes we are still a relatively young population but emigration could hurt us in this regard later down the line. Hopefully not, but lets take care that we have a strucure that can work regardless of our demographic profile and economic position. Theres no use fighting for a world class health system if theres no money to pay for it.

Ah but demographically we're still the best-placed in Europe to think about paying for an army of old, health-care dependent people.

Italy would be in the worst situation in that regard. What are they going to do I wonder?