Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:12PM, vra wrote:

Let me recommend that a couple of people here do your own homework-- it's all out there.  And simple logic by itself should tell anyone that if our costs are the highest in the world but our results aren't that impressive, there's a problem-- and it has to be mostly with the private sector if one were to actually do some studying.  But, no, actually trying to look something up using something other than a right-wing blog is just asking way too much for a couple of people here, which is why I really don't like dealing with those who do as such.

Lets see.  Wiki is doing your homework?

Geeeeez

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:

But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.

Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?

Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.

And much the same historically could be said about T.V.A., the building of which was done through public coffers because the private investors didn't consider it to be likely profitable enough.  Well, it did prove out to be quite lucrative after all, and the Republicans in the 50's demanded that Eisenhower sell it to private investors, but he refused.  Too late-- too bad. 

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:18PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 3:43PM, Jstanl wrote:

But the assertion that the government operates on substantially less overhead than a similar private sector operation is so ludicrus that it is not even worthy of further discussion.

Oh really? Then how does Alameda Power and Light (owned by the City of Alameda in California) do it with no subsidies and lower rates than PG&E, while PG&E gets tax breaks and also has the advantage of scale?

Please, look into this example and explain how this does not directly counter your assertion.

It's your claim why don't you explain it?

And why did TVA provide electricity for decades at rates way below what surrounding power companies charged.

(Do you really expect me to believe that there is a power company out there that operates with no subsidies?)

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:12PM, vra wrote:

Let me recommend that a couple of people here do your own homework-- it's all out there.  And simple logic by itself should tell anyone that if our costs are the highest in the world but our results aren't that impressive, there's a problem-- and it has to be mostly with the private sector if one were to actually do some studying.  But, no, actually trying to look something up using something other than a right-wing blog is just asking way too much for a couple of people here, which is why I really don't like dealing with those who do as such.

vra, I think we have done this dance before, but maybe not.

Lets use Canada.  But it could be the UK.  The cost of healthcare against their GDP is not a fair comparison with the US because they do not account for those on the que in those countries.  There are no waiting lists here as their are there for those reasons.

The reasons for waiting lines in Canada for instance is due to one of three things:

Money (from the govt)

Facility availability

Physician availability

A fair percentage of Canadians wait on health care.  A country of 30million with easily 5 million waiting on surgery.

It is not a valid point that Canadians consider their wait times reasonable.  The point of the discussion with regard to GDP is money spent in a given framework of time, not a need base, of which their govt has set guidelines for those as obama wishes to do here.

Look at it this way and tell me if you think this a fair measure:

Lets say the govt's fiscal year ends Sept 30.

On that day, we count the people on each country's waiting list for the variables described above.

In the US, the number would be -0-.

In Canada it could be 4 million (literally).

Adjusted for popualtion desceprencies,  both countries spent $10 billion on health care.

Would this be an accurate display of healthcare costs vs GDP?

Why or why not?

My point here, is that if Canada spends 13% and the US spends 19%, you say that we spend more per capita on healthcare costs than Canada by 6%.

But that would be wrong.  You would have to add back the 4million to the Canadian side of the ledger for the various specialties.  Those 4 million would have received healthcare in the US and it would subsequently be added to those cost.

Because the US has no waiting line, the numbers penalize the US for giving the care.  If we were to develop a waiting line for healthcare, our GDP vs HC numbers would conversely drop.

In 2006, the real numbers were :

The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%

So you're looking at 5.3% difference.  Add back those on the waiting line and its pretty close to even, except in Canada you still have to wait.

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:45PM, vra wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Jstanl wrote:

Apr 6, 2011 -- 5:35PM, vra wrote:

You know, there's plenty of people who I may disagree with at times who are very honest people, so I'd rather deal with them.

You are accusing me of being dishonest?

Sorry for that as I said it in the heat of the moment, however let's just say that I think it's best that we not attempt to dialogue simply for reasons that are not new.  However, that's still no excuse for me being rude, so I do apologize.

Accepted. 

But I really think it was simply an unfortunate choice of terminology.  Clearly we are looking at this differently.  Having served in the managment of a very large private construction organization for over three decades, I am accutely aware of what the term 'overhead' means in private industry, as well as terms like gross and net profit.  So I am aware that both the general newsmedia and liberal rhetoric treat these terms very differently.

I am sure that not only you and I, but Medicare and the private medical insurance industry are treating the term 'overhead' differently.