So... you didn't read the article then?

Roseto was just like the other surrounding towns then, except for culture and the results were VATLY different.

Additonally, your quanitative analysis isn't quanititative because the numbers involve qualititative issues.  The Quanitative of cost spent is greatly effected by the qualitative culture.

Also, no urban and rural rations DON'T matter.  I'm getting the feeling you don't actually understand how socialized healthcare works.

The local Healthcare councils make decisions based on a case by case basis... not on some overaching "people in this war are covered for these drugs and operations and not these."

Additionally, as stated... it eventually creates levels.

You have 100 employees, you have 10 managers, you have on head of the department.

You have 700 employees, you have 70 managers, you have 7 heads of department?

Can't have 7 heads of department, so....

You have 700 Employees, 70 managers, 7 Regional Managers and 1 Head of deparment. 

Now instead of this small example, extrapolate that over 1,000 healthcare councils and PCS with tons of employees a piece.

How do you get around not creating levels and spending more money?  Tell me.

Well, the reason you might not see so many of these threads anymore is because since the site has been restructured most political and all the other off-topic stuff doesn't reach the front page any more.

Kasz, reread my edited post, specifcally where I talk about economies of scale.

Besides, this doesnt even matter to your healthcare debate because we have the choice between a large private firm or a large public organization.  Its not like the government is going to replace Mom and Pop hospitals and health insurance agencies.

Economics of scale doesn't work here.  We're talking about jobs and services people provide.  Econimics of scale doesn't work on that.

You can have all the stores in the world.  You still need to pay managers the same.  If you need to add regional managers... in buisness that's made up by profit.  Which isn't found here.

Once again... this has to do with you claiming the UK system wouldn't cost anymore here then there.... it would.

If nothing changed about the UK except it were to be multiplied by 7.  Their healthcare system would cost far more per GDP then it does now.

You disagree with this... and your wrong.

Economics of scale in general wouldn't help when you have a government monopoly.  If the UK got 7 times bigger things wouldn't be cheaper because the government already controls the pricing.

Such a fact completly defeats your comparison.  That and the whole culture thing.  Since culture is going to GREATLY effect what you need to spend per person to keep said people healthy.

For example, people Roseto would spend less per capita in healthcare because they don't need to be treated as much as the surrounding nearly identical cities.

Also, actual most health insurance does come from "Mom and Pop" sources, so to speak.  The government is BY FAR the countries biggest insuerer... and one of the worst rated in just about everything including denied claims on average.

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?

If you take a close look at communal living around the world you will notice that there are very few well run communes that are (much) larger than about 100 people, and many of the most successful communes split into two when the commune becomes too large. The reason for this is that as a commune grows larger corruption and favouritism become larger and larger problems, and when the leadership of a commune is no longer accountable to every member of the community it tends to fail.

The same pattern is demonstrated in modern governments being that the governments of most small towns tend to be run very efficiently, with little waste or favouritism while larger cities, state and federal governments around the world tend to see increasing levels of favouritism and corruption everywhere. When you’re dealing with a federal government that represents (roughly) 300 Million people and is already spending more per capita on government run insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) while covering a fraction of the people of smaller countries, why would you assume that a greater role of this government in healthcare would reduce costs?

1. Which Bush policy caused gas to jump to $4.00-$5.00 per gallon? Please provide a link to it.
2. Healthcare isn't free. Show me where the money is coming from for his 'free' healthcare.
3. Gas under Bush started at $1.49 and ended at $1.99 where I live. It didn't increase on Bush under his first year, either. 

Please answer these questions.

While I wouldn't call it "Bush's Fault" the core reason why energy prices have been on a steady increase has been an inflationary monetary policy of the federal reserve (along with an unwillingness of the state and federal government to run balanced budgets) which has resulted in many/most major currencies increasing in value by 25% to 50% against the US dollar over the past decade. To put it another way, most commodity prices (including food and energy) are increasing at such a rapid rate because inflation statistics are heavily manipulated and not representative of reality.

And I agree with you. The problem is that txrattlesnake (like many people) equate a problem with an acute failure of government by one man.

You are correct in that an inflationary monetary policy had something to do with it. However, oil didn't rise 25-50%, it rose 100-200%.

My thoughts on why oil increased so acutely under Bush comes down to the following:

• Devaulation of US currency due to bad monetary policy
• Increase in base oil prices well outside of US jurisdiction by a president
• Low production by US facilities in regards to our consumption (making points 1 and 2 more valuable)

I think there are things that Bush could of absolutely done to reduce oil prices. However, some of these things were hindered by other areas of government at state and local levels. ANWAR is a great example of that - it has huge amounts of oil, but congress and the senate have voted against it. Because of this, I don't like it when people like TX attribute prices to one, and only one guy because that's simply not the case.