3 ms·

1. the numbers are government healthcare expenditure, not private healthcare expenditure 2. CPI won't change a the bottom line take-away. Feel free to run the

by antr 8y ago

1. the numbers are government healthcare expenditure, not private healthcare expenditure 2. CPI won't change a the bottom line take-away. Feel free to run the numbers.

dagw 8y ago
1. the numbers are government healthcare expenditure, not private healthcare expenditure Sure, but what percentage of that government expenditure is going to private health care providers? And how has that number changed over time?
- antr 8y ago
  Please refer to the url provided, it's there for a reason
  - dagw 8y ago
    I tried, but as someone not familiar with the intricacies of the Spanish health care system (or the Spanish language for that matter) the numbers are tricky to parse out.
RobertoG 8y ago
So, you don't take into account inflation, not GDP per capita grow, not population ageing, but the take-away should be the same.
- antr 8y ago
  There is an argument made towards "rampant privatisation", i.e. a transfer of a business from public to private control. However, data shows that government expenditure has increased above CPI, the driver of prices (not an output like "GDP per capita", which for some reason you refer too as an economic driver of sorts). I cannot observe, from official data the I link to, a slow down in public healthcare investment by the Spanish government, and definitely not an increase in expenses due to the Government paying private healthcare players. Feel free to dive into the data and indicate otherwise. I'm not here for armchair politics.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    The data you request (if I'm reading it correctly) is in your link, in the "2002-2016 series" document, page 9, point 3.3 The transference to the private sector in 2002 (thousands of Euros): 25017 In 2010 (the highest of the serie): 81997 In 2016: 54913 I didn't say the "rampant privatization" thing, but, as you can see, the spending more than doubled. Should we take into account the inflation here or not? GDP per capita is, I think, important as an answer to your opinion of "expenditure is out of control" by the way. >>"I'm not here for armchair politics." Good to know, but until where I can see, we were discussing numbers not politics. EDIT: I keep reading and that data is not right. The number are low, but I can't make sense of the tables. It would take a while to understand it. The good news is the data is there.
    - antr 8y ago
      Page 6. Page 9 is central administrative costs, and then, if we put your private expenditure figure into perspective: in 2010 (highest of the series) private costs were €82m vs €69,000m total healthcare costs in 2010. That is a 0.12%
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by antr 8y ago

1. the numbers are government healthcare expenditure, not private healthcare expenditure 2. CPI won't change a the bottom line take-away. Feel free to run the numbers.

dagw 8y ago

1. the numbers are government healthcare expenditure, not private healthcare expenditure Sure, but what percentage of that government expenditure is going to private health care providers? And how has that number changed over time?

antr 8y ago
Please refer to the url provided, it's there for a reason
- dagw 8y ago
  I tried, but as someone not familiar with the intricacies of the Spanish health care system (or the Spanish language for that matter) the numbers are tricky to parse out.

RobertoG 8y ago

So, you don't take into account inflation, not GDP per capita grow, not population ageing, but the take-away should be the same.

antr 8y ago
There is an argument made towards "rampant privatisation", i.e. a transfer of a business from public to private control. However, data shows that government expenditure has increased above CPI, the driver of prices (not an output like "GDP per capita", which for some reason you refer too as an economic driver of sorts). I cannot observe, from official data the I link to, a slow down in public healthcare investment by the Spanish government, and definitely not an increase in expenses due to the Government paying private healthcare players. Feel free to dive into the data and indicate otherwise. I'm not here for armchair politics.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  The data you request (if I'm reading it correctly) is in your link, in the "2002-2016 series" document, page 9, point 3.3 The transference to the private sector in 2002 (thousands of Euros): 25017 In 2010 (the highest of the serie): 81997 In 2016: 54913 I didn't say the "rampant privatization" thing, but, as you can see, the spending more than doubled. Should we take into account the inflation here or not? GDP per capita is, I think, important as an answer to your opinion of "expenditure is out of control" by the way. >>"I'm not here for armchair politics." Good to know, but until where I can see, we were discussing numbers not politics. EDIT: I keep reading and that data is not right. The number are low, but I can't make sense of the tables. It would take a while to understand it. The good news is the data is there.
  - antr 8y ago
    Page 6. Page 9 is central administrative costs, and then, if we put your private expenditure figure into perspective: in 2010 (highest of the series) private costs were €82m vs €69,000m total healthcare costs in 2010. That is a 0.12%
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]