| ManusJustus said: I'm sorry Kasz, but you are just plain wrong. Take a look at healthcare funding again, and you'll see Iceland paying $2,600 per capita compared to the United States $4,600 per capita. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita Using your logic, we could say that since Iceland has a population of 300,000, which is 100 times less than American population, that if Iceland had Americas population they would be paying $260,000 per capita in healthcare. This logic is laughably wrong. In reality, wether you choose to accept reality or not, population does not have an effect on measures of GDP, healthcare spending, and a plethora of other factors that you consider to be 'uncomparable.' Look at the link I posted above, and it should become obvious that population size has no correlation with healthcare costs. |
Once again you keep mentioning numbers that don't mean anything in the face of basic logic. It's really... mind boggling.
Before we continue I think i need to know a few things.
A) Did you read the exert I posted. Link again here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/outliers.htm
Healthcare spending in Roseto, no doubt, cost much less then in other places, because people were healthier.
Healthy culture = Less people getting sick = Less spending per GDP even when all other factors are equal.
Hence any comparison of absolute GDP healthcare spending is absolutely moronic.
B) You still haven't answered the question. How do you avoid the fact that larger populations need more levels of staffing then smaller ones? How does economics of scale fit in, when the government is the one who decides the prices anway?
An use of a single absolute giant number is completly pointless without sorting out numerous confoudning variables such as disease prevelence, obesity rates, rates of smokers... etc.
Additionally NOWHERE did I say population was a DIRECT modifier.
If things were as you say they were you'd think europe would just follow one countries plan rather then have craploads of different forms of socialized medicine plans because what works for one country doesn't work for another do to craploads of different healthcare factors.
Why don't they all use the same model if its so easy to break down which is best?
Why is it that countries like France who tried to incoprorate scandinavian style healthcare find that it was unworkable in their country?
