Nov 14th 2012, 22:34:14
My point went completely over your head CK. The private system is in fact more expensive than universal systems. It actually comes out to being approximately 2.5 times as expensive per capita when compared to universal systems. This flies in the face of the "private is more efficient" mantra of New Public Management and Alternative Service Delivery and on the surface it should be easy to see why: public systems don't retain a % of the money thrown into the system as profit, whereas the private system does.
As such, my point was that if people are concerned about public system being worse on a quality basis, then a simple solutions is to invest a similar amount of $ as they do now. Under those circumstances by extension the system MUST be better funding and of higher quality than other public systems. It may not be a 1:1 ratio, but I never argued it was. For you to claim that there isn't a correlation between quality of care and funding for care, well then I have a bridge to sell YOU.
The issue that most healthcare systems are having now is that they can't afford to continue to increase funding, especially given the rapidly increasing costs of current care.
As such, my point was that if people are concerned about public system being worse on a quality basis, then a simple solutions is to invest a similar amount of $ as they do now. Under those circumstances by extension the system MUST be better funding and of higher quality than other public systems. It may not be a 1:1 ratio, but I never argued it was. For you to claim that there isn't a correlation between quality of care and funding for care, well then I have a bridge to sell YOU.
The issue that most healthcare systems are having now is that they can't afford to continue to increase funding, especially given the rapidly increasing costs of current care.