Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
O.k., lets see how can I explain some of the problems with coming to a conclusion for health care based on % of GDP. Let's say you have a farm and I have a farm. I produce 100 whatevers and you produce 25 whatevers, our GDP. We both use horses I spend 20% of my GDP on medical expenses for my horses, you spend 10% on your horses. You spend 2.5 I spend 20. Your horses live longer than my horses, etc, etc. If your horses break a leg or if they have a problem, they get a bullet in the head and a nice burial. Your horses don't tend to complain about broken legs or other problems because they know the drill. My horses get first class treatment and if they can't work they go out to stud. They die early trying to have as much sex as possible with the young fillies. Would you rather be a horse on my farm or yours?
|
Holy crap. You do realize that the issue you have portrayed has nothing to do with using GDP as a weight in comparisons, right?
You do realize that, considering that the US has the largest GDP in the world, and one of the largest GDP per capita in the world, the fact that the US spends more as a share of GDP means that the US spends much more, comparatively, in actual dollars, right?
And you do realize that the table I linked above actually shows that Americans get LESS healthcare, measured in visits, hospital stays, hospital beds, etc. than others who spend much less, right?
And you do realize that not only do other nations get more care, they also have better outcomes, right?
In other words, other than obfuscation, what was the point of this post?