ManusJustus said:
You and Timmah both said this, but 'per capita' takes care of population and size into account. The only argument that I can see you make would be urban vs rural. Great Britian is more urban than the United States, but in no way does that make up for the United States paying three times as much as Great Britian does for healthcare. Rural areas tend to get less funding anyway. |
no. It doesn't.
Per Capita is "average per person".
That doesn't take into account the fact that larger nations are going to spend more per person.
Here's a fun lesson in how buisnesses and orginzations work.
Say you have a country with 9 people in it.
You have 3 administrators that can take care of 3 peoples healthcare... and one person on top that can watch 3 administrators.
So that's... 3 Administrators and 1 guy on top.... you pay each 10 dollars, and the guy on top 20. For a total of 50 dollars pay.
$5.55 per capita
Now.... take a country with 18 people in it.
You have 6 administrators Who can watch 10 people. However you have 2 people on top since each can only watch 3 people.
NOW you need a person on top of them to watch the two administrators to watch the two people on top.
The admins make 10 each. 20 for the administrators, and 30 for the guys on top.
130 dollars pay total.
or $7.22 Per capita.
Now what about a country that's 6 times larger then the first? With way more hospitals because people are way more spread out.
The larger the country the bigger the infastructure is going to get.... and the more layers or employees are going to be needed and hired to make sure everyone else is on the up and up.
Each layer adds a significant amount per capita.
