Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: socialist health care


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: socialist health care Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 3:52:49 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Polite you didnt think that would even be a remote possible really did you?


So far this week he has asked me to substantiate a claim I havent made, accused me of using strawman arguments, and tried to suggest I was breaking the TOS. Despite all that, he claims to be able to debate, which is odd because he refuses to show any proof of what he says is true.

But you are right Lucylicious, I didnt think it was remotely possible.


1) challenging me to expand on the subject implies you agree with DCWoody, plus your prior posts make it clear you do agree. If you want to challenge me as Woody's proxy you have the same burden of proof he does.
2) You did
3) I always do, not my fault that you and other libs dont like the answers and dont bother to respond when I do.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/28/2010 3:54:21 PM >

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:10:24 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Challenge you ? what is this, playschool or something. Asking you to expand on a topic doesnt mean I agree with Woody or anyone else, it means you have ducked the issue again ( I hesitated to use again as you said that was insulting you )  I am asking to see any kind of evidence to back up your comment.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:11:09 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Challenge you ? what is this, playschool or something. Asking you to expand on a topic doesnt mean I agree with Woody or anyone else, it means you have ducked the issue again ( I hesitated to use again as you said that was insulting you )  I am asking to see any kind of evidence to back up your comment.


Im waiting for woody to support it so I can pull his underwear over his head.

But I guess youre saying that you dont agree with it, so I didnt give you quite enough credit. Congratulations on not falling for the propganda.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/28/2010 4:12:43 PM >

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:15:24 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		I knew you would have a reason not to show any evidence.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:18:03 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I knew you would have a reason not to show any evidence.


I explained that reason several times, youre "knowing" it doesnt qualify as brilliant insight. Anytime you want to stand in for Woody, go right ahead.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:30:30 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I knew you would have a reason not to show any evidence.


I explained that reason several times, youre "knowing" it doesnt qualify as brilliant insight. Anytime you want to stand in for Woody, go right ahead.


Anyone with half a brain can see clearly what you are doing. Woody supplied the numbers you wanted in post 66. You replied something about that didnt have the time to go through them but they were wrong in post 67.

If you think im wrong go read your own words.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:36:32 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I knew you would have a reason not to show any evidence.


I explained that reason several times, youre "knowing" it doesnt qualify as brilliant insight. Anytime you want to stand in for Woody, go right ahead.


Anyone with half a brain can see clearly what you are doing. Woody supplied the numbers you wanted in post 66. You replied something about that didnt have the time to go through them but they were wrong in post 67.

If you think im wrong go read your own words.


Post 66 doesnt have anything to do with his claim of higher standards, which was the topic of my portion of this exchange. If you were referring to his numbers, I said they dont make any sense, not that they were wrong. I will get to that part.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 4:59:05 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		One of my replies has been deleted, understandably, I did insult ya (though I say it was a highly accurate insult)...but it didn't particularly bring anything new other than that. Although I did respond to the point quite a lot....I am repeatedly repeating myself at this point.

"If you were referring to his numbers, I said they dont make any sense, not that they were wrong. I will get to that part."

How about we deal with this (as this was brought up way beforeyou tried to change the topic) first.

To restate (again again again again) what I've already said, the British healthcare system is cheaper (much much cheaper) than the american. You dispute this.

The American govt spends 18.5% of revenue, which is 7.3% of GDP, or US$3505(PPP) per person, to cover 29% of the population. (~12,000 dollars per person actually covered)
The British govt spends 15.8% of revenue, which is 6.9% of GDP, or US$2556(PPP) per person, to cover 100% of the population.

Total spending, including private:
UK per person:3,129   US$(PPP) total:8.2% of GDP
USA per person:7,538 US$(PPP) total:16.0% of GDP

These figures are from the OECD.* They are universally accepted as being accurate. In the question of 'who spends more on healthcare, americans or brits?' it is you (and possibly sanity, although he appears to be pretending this thread does not exist after it was demonstrated how massively incorrect he was), vs the entire rest of the world.

This is not a matter of opinion, there is not some other way of looking at it...it is not a close run thing. You are wrong by miles and miles and miles.

*except the 29% thing, which is tazzys source.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 5:59:43 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		Define higher standard with healthcare, as opposed to lower standard ?

If you are at death's door fighting for life and you get cured, how do you know you had a high standard of care or low standard of care, bearing in mind when one is in that state they don't care what the standard, they need help and that is that in whatever form..

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 6:26:05 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody



To restate (again again again again) what I've already said, the British healthcare system is cheaper (much much cheaper) than the american. You dispute this.




No I never disputed that. I said the numbers you posted dont make sense, and now I will explain why they are apparently so different, when if fact they arent.

US government expenditures on health care are extremely heavily weighted toward Medicare, ie over age 65 participants, which is a minimum of 3x as expensive as average costs. So 29% of the population equates to about 90% on an equivalent cost basis. Gross up the 7.3% of GDP from 90% to 100% and you have an truer equivalence at about 8% of GDP for 100% of the population in the US vs 6.9% in the UK. (Using your numbers).

You also have to adjust the 6.9% in the UK because it doesnt really cover 100% of the costs. Private costs are around 15% of overall cost in the UK, which is algebraically equivalent to only covering 85% of the "average population", not 100%. Grpss up the 6.9% from 85% to 100% and the comparable numbers are now 8% US vs 8.1% UK.

I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare. Based on the premiums for closing gap in Medicare coverage, the 8% in the US needs to be grossed up by about 12% to about 9.1%.

So even assuming NHS pays for everything the comparable numbers are about 9.1% vs 8.1% for equivalent levels and ages of populations. Not even close to the 3.6 times the costs that a rudimentary gross up of 29% of the population would imply.

now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 8:56:28 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		Now you're just making shit up. I have repeatedly given the actual non-pulled from your arse numbers.
Total spending, including private:
UK per person:3,129   US$(PPP) total:8.2% of GDP
USA per person:7,538 US$(PPP) total:16.0% of GDP

Not 8.1 & 9.1, 8.2 & 16. These are the facts. These are the actual figures. Not my estimations, those are the actual, real, numbers.



"I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare."

You really.....really really really.....have no fucking clue what you're talking about do you?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:00:00 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

Now you're just making shit up. I have repeatedly given the actual non-pulled from your arse numbers.
Total spending, including private:
UK per person:3,129   US$(PPP) total:8.2% of GDP
USA per person:7,538 US$(PPP) total:16.0% of GDP

Not 8.1 & 9.1, 8.2 & 16. These are the facts. These are the actual figures. Not my estimations, those are the actual, real, numbers.



"I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare."

You really.....really really really.....have no fucking clue what you're talking about do you?



I didnt make anything up. Your numbers are apples and oranges. But then I wouldnt expect you to admit that you didnt have a clue about the meaning of the numbers in your post.

Now about that quality claim you made.....

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:08:13 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		The numbers in my post are universally agreed to be the actual numbers, the truth, the correct answer. The numbers you came up with are nothing.
The US govt spending on healthcare is 7.3% of US GDP.
NOT 9.1%
The total american spending on healthcare is 16% of US GDP
NOT 9.1%
American private spending on healthcare (as you're clearly very poor at logic) is therefore 8.7% of GDP



9.1% is nowhere to be found, because it's something you just made up.

If you are incapable of understanding that I have given you the actual, factual, data....as compiled by the OECD, and confirmed by (among many others) The WHO and the American government....then you should not have kids.


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:12:21 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

The numbers in my post are universally agreed to be the actual numbers, the truth, the correct answer. The numbers you came up with are nothing.
The US govt spending on healthcare is 7.3% of US GDP.
NOT 9.1%
The total american spending on healthcare is 16% of US GDP
NOT 9.1%
American private spending on healthcare (as you're clearly very poor at logic) is therefore 8.7% of GDP



9.1% is nowhere to be found, because it's something you just made up.

If you are incapable of understanding that I have given you the actual, factual, data....as compiled by the OECD, and confirmed by (among many others) The WHO and the American government....then you should not have kids.




and if you are incapable of understanding that the numbers you posted are not directly comparable you should not post, period. Now run along and find some numbers that you think substantiate your quality claim so i can tear them to shreds as well.

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 8/28/2010 9:13:11 PM >

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:14:57 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



US government expenditures on health care are extremely heavily weighted toward Medicare, ie over age 65 participants, which is a minimum of 3x as expensive as average costs. So 29% of the population equates to about 90% on an equivalent cost basis. Gross up the 7.3% of GDP from 90% to 100% and you have an truer equivalence at about 8% of GDP for 100% of the population in the US vs 6.9% in the UK. (Using your numbers).

You also have to adjust the 6.9% in the UK because it doesnt really cover 100% of the costs. Private costs are around 15% of overall cost in the UK, which is algebraically equivalent to only covering 85% of the "average population", not 100%. Grpss up the 6.9% from 85% to 100% and the comparable numbers are now 8% US vs 8.1% UK.

I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare. Based on the premiums for closing gap in Medicare coverage, the 8% in the US needs to be grossed up by about 12% to about 9.1%.

So even assuming NHS pays for everything the comparable numbers are about 9.1% vs 8.1% for equivalent levels and ages of populations. Not even close to the 3.6 times the costs that a rudimentary gross up of 29% of the population would imply.

now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality.
Mein Gott, this is truly hilarious! You just make up all kinds of bullshit numbers, hoping that nobody sees through your horseshit.

So, "now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality?"

Mr. Ed's owner -------->>>>>>




_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:18:11 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



US government expenditures on health care are extremely heavily weighted toward Medicare, ie over age 65 participants, which is a minimum of 3x as expensive as average costs. So 29% of the population equates to about 90% on an equivalent cost basis. Gross up the 7.3% of GDP from 90% to 100% and you have an truer equivalence at about 8% of GDP for 100% of the population in the US vs 6.9% in the UK. (Using your numbers).

You also have to adjust the 6.9% in the UK because it doesnt really cover 100% of the costs. Private costs are around 15% of overall cost in the UK, which is algebraically equivalent to only covering 85% of the "average population", not 100%. Grpss up the 6.9% from 85% to 100% and the comparable numbers are now 8% US vs 8.1% UK.

I dont know what the copays and deductibles are in the UK, I would expect it is more complete coverage than Medicare. Based on the premiums for closing gap in Medicare coverage, the 8% in the US needs to be grossed up by about 12% to about 9.1%.

So even assuming NHS pays for everything the comparable numbers are about 9.1% vs 8.1% for equivalent levels and ages of populations. Not even close to the 3.6 times the costs that a rudimentary gross up of 29% of the population would imply.

now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality.
Mein Gott, this is truly hilarious! You just make up all kinds of bullshit numbers, hoping that nobody sees through your horseshit.

So, "now, how about some more misleading numbers that you think show higher quality?"

Mr. Ed's owner -------->>>>>>





This from someone who claims I was wrong about when correlation implies causation. Stop embarassing yourself. The facts I used to adjust incomparable numbers are easily verified, and anyone with the vaguest knowledge of health care already knows them.

Go away little girl.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:21:48 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		If you are trying to say that it's unfair to compare british spending with american because the american system is much more expensive and america lacks universal healthcare, you are missing the point.

Your claim that the 29% of the us population represents 90% of the costs is untrue, as I have repeatedly given the actual total spending and it is NOT 9.1%, it is 16%.

Your adding the private costs to the UKs figure gives 8.2% (not what you said, but the ACTUAL number in reality is 8.2%) Which is much less than 16%.

Attempting to compare just government spending, the UKs is ALREADY lower for 100% than the US's is for 29%.

And your claim that the USs 29% is the most expensive sector is irrelevant because the UK covers 100%....which obviously would include the most expensive 29% AND everyone else.


What you did, was attempt to generate the figure for total UK spending (apparently not noticing I'd already given it), and compare it with a theoretical total for american spending. The problem being that your theoretical total does not match the REAL total.

tl;dr - you were and are completely wrong.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:31:24 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

If you are trying to say that it's unfair to compare british spending with american because the american system is much more expensive and america lacks universal healthcare, you are missing the point.

Your claim that the 29% of the us population represents 90% of the costs is untrue, as I have repeatedly given the actual total spending and it is NOT 9.1%, it is 16%.

Your adding the private costs to the UKs figure gives 8.2% (not what you said, but the ACTUAL number in reality is 8.2%) Which is much less than 16%.

Attempting to compare just government spending, the UKs is ALREADY lower for 100% than the US's is for 29%.

And your claim that the USs 29% is the most expensive sector is irrelevant because the UK covers 100%....which obviously would include the most expensive 29% AND everyone else.


What you did, was attempt to generate the figure for total UK spending (apparently not noticing I'd already given it), and compare it with a theoretical total for american spending. The problem being that your theoretical total does not match the REAL total.

tl;dr - you were and are completely wrong.


You'll have to take remedial math before I respond to your nonsense again.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 9:39:14 PM   
DCWoody


Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline 		Yeah, maths's always been a weakspot of mine, you've got me there, with your 3* the expense must mean you multiply the % of population by 3....

Don't worry, because this is the internet you can delay your response as long as it takes you to think up some explanation for that one ;)

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: socialist health care - 8/28/2010 11:41:51 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		Guys, could you perhaps post your sources? Would help your arguement(s).

(in reply to DCWoody)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: socialist health care Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094