2024 Election thread
Comments
-
It's the land of milk and honey when it suits your argument.
Their education system is bonkers as well.
0 -
The economy is incredible. You cannot deny that. It's magic.
I would argue that that is in spite of the health system.
I also suspect, the US system is so bananas and extracts so much rent from healthcare, that it effectively subsidises the rest of the world re healthcare - especially when it comes to drugs.
Your American paying $250 per epipen allows for the NHS to buy epipens at a fraction.
0 -
You are cherry picking. You love the sound of the salaries, but not large parts of why.
0 -
I don't think I am.
Are you suggesting the reason why the US economy is so successful is because they have a bonkers health system?
You might need to provide evidence for such a ludicrous assertion.
I do not remotely buy the argument that you cannot get the US economy without the weird health system. That's a ridiculous argument.
0 -
You are just being stupid now.
0 -
Fantastic evidence and argument, consider me convinced.
Back it up, argue it, or accept you're wrong.
0 -
So is the NHS failing because it's a socialist system, or because it doesn't have enough money.
Or does it not have enough money because it's a socialist system.
Talk of random bits of needing reform etc is easy, as is mock shock over how many people it employs.
What struck me when I had a relative who was unfortunately a bit of a frequent user of the service, was how many of the issues were caused by not having anywhere people could be discharged to as a halfway point between a full ward and their home.
0 -
-
Local salaries are based in part on cost of living.
The US economy is "remarkable" in large part because of borrowing, but they also have vast natural resources,.on account of it being a comparatively sparesely populated subcontinent.
If you strip out the things you need to pay for in the US from equivalent taxes in Europe, the differences areuch smaller than you make out.
But these are all arguments youve ignored when other peopleake them. So I expect you will say something about the poorest US state being richer than the UK and continue to do so until I give up wasting my energy, thereby proving to yourself that you are right.
0 -
I think the American EpiPen is so expensive in part because the drug companies have managed to convince the American lawmakers that they are R+D outfits with small marketing operations, rather than marketing outfits with small R+D operations.
0 -
They will be patent protected and the physicians prescribing them will have a perfectly legal conflict of interest.
0 -
So it's not about healthcare? Why are you even bringing it up then? It was a discussion on healthcare, and you suddenly got upset that I was against the healthcare system but think their economy is great? And then you suggested that you cannot have one without the other? or "cherry pick" as you called it.
And then you have gone and discussed something totally separate to that? Stick to the point, man!
--
To answer this argument - go look at "purchasing power parity" - it adjusts for cost of stuff etc. (Purchasing power parity (PPP) is a popular macroeconomic analysis metric used to compare economic productivity and standards of living between countries.)
Check out the stats:
US median household income hit (PPP) $65,657.65 in 2021
The UK median household income (PPP) hit $46,691 in 2021
lolololol
0 -
Their healthcare system is flawed and this pushes up costs. Which people pay for from their salaries. This means there's less left over from what we call "salary" to buy other things.
In Europe we have these things called "taxes" instead, which we pay for by salary and it amounts to more or less the same thing.
Some people argue that one is more efficient than the other, and our "taxes" seem to be lower than "prices" for healthcare in the US. This is a good job because if we suddenly went over to the US system, we'd all struggle to afford it, because salaries wouldn't reflect the higher cost of living.
I couldn't find any charts or pictures for you to assist I'm afraid, but I hope that helps. If it is too complex, there's an introductory version using beans as an analogy.
0 -
I think it's politically much more difficult to change it away from being a socialist model.
0 -
What on earth are you arguing here? The US system is expensive? And Americans pay a lot for it? Yeah duh. That's why it's a bonkers system.
Stop arguing for argument's sake because it's me. I'm in your head and I don't know why. We agree - it's a stupid health system.
0 -
I think we should ignore the US model entirely because it doesn't show that there is a direct correlation between health spending and outcome, which we all know to be true.
0 -
Yes that's literally what I say. it's dysfunctional and is full of rent-seeking behaviour that is not present in more or less any other developed country's health system. It is not representative of anything other than a mental model.
0 -
What we need to do is reach a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. That way it is easy to identify the evidence we need to discount .
0 -
Was Canada on that list? I couldn't access the captions on the chart. Normally that doesn't matter.
0 -
Have you ever heard of the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule'?
What about all the other countries that don't spend as much as the US? Or are you saying that the US is the only country with a decent healthcare system?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pretty sure he's saying the opposite i.e. the US system is shit despite the amount they spend but that other countries that spend more than the UK generally have a better system.
0 -
I would say their health system is symptomatic of reasons why their economy is strong i.e. that people only really care about themselves. Making money is easier in a society where you don't have to worry about the impact you have on others.
0 -
That's why I'm asking what point he is trying to make.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is still not an outlier.
But my point above is that its not just about how much money you chuck at it - that is the simplistic leftie solution to most things. It's about how efficiently the funds are spent and the NHS needs major reform to do that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There's an arguable absence of asking why, and in turn what else one might do as an alternative or additionally to throwing money at the situation.
0 -
-
-
And yet there's a finite amount of money to spend. The easy bit is saying "more". The hard part is saying where or how.
0 -
And obviously Labour not going to set themselves up of being accused of doing a Truss.
0 -
The reality is we are all going to have to spend less on consumption and more on healthcare because of the demography of Britain.
It doesn't really matter where or how. We will spend less on other things.
So less social welfare, less disposable income, more on health and care and inevitably defence, given the global direction of travel.
Unless we find a way to improve productivity, we're going to be all materially poorer. We need to grow to stay still, because of the demography of the UK.
A nice evenly shared burden makes sense - rather than focusing just on working people.
0
