Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

randomcriticalanalysis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#11

Post by s1artibartfast »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #3

This starts with saying that there is a popular telling that the more money a country spends the better life expectancy will be. Especially looking at the US I thought most people know that US doesn't get much value compared to the money spent. Was that really controversial?

I think the controversial idea is that the USA healthcare system is operating on the same efficiency curve as other developed nations.

That is to say, a socialized healthcare system with the same spending is unlikely to provide any improvements in life expectancy.

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#12

Post by hdlothia »

rcafdm wrote: post #9
hdlothia wrote: post #4

Australia has similar rates of obesity and better health outcomes don't they?.

No, but this is addressed in my post. Australia's obesity rate is substantially lower, plus they suffer from lower homicide, drug abuse, and the like. More generally, the diminishing returns to health spending imply there's very little to believe the higher expenditure the US makes is likely to purchase appreciably better outcomes (even with different healthcare regimes).

34% to 28% is substantially lower?

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#13

Post by hdlothia »

rcafdm wrote: post #9
hdlothia wrote: post #4

Australia has similar rates of obesity and better health outcomes don't they?.

No, but this is addressed in my post. Australia's obesity rate is substantially lower, plus they suffer from lower homicide, drug abuse, and the like. More generally, the diminishing returns to health spending imply there's very little to believe the higher expenditure the US makes is likely to purchase appreciably better outcomes (even with different healthcare regimes).

Are you the original author? Have you done an evaluation on the financial consequences of both healthcare systems as well? Do people suffer medical bankruptcies at similar levels in our peer nations?

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#14

Post by rcafdm »

hdlothia wrote: post #12
rcafdm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but this is addressed in my post. Australia's obesity rate is substantially lower, plus they suffer from lower homicide, drug abuse, and the like. More generally, the diminishing returns to health spending imply there's very little to believe the higher expenditure the US makes is likely to purchase appreciably better outcomes (even with different healthcare regimes).

34% to 28% is substantially lower?

The exact numbers depend on the source/methodology, but all credible estimates show large differences and these differences imply large effects for mortality rates [in the broader population](https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/11/07/a-tale-of-two-...).

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#15

Post by urbanjunkie »

rcafdm wrote: post #7
Ididntdothis wrote: post #3

This starts with saying that there is a popular telling that the more money a country spends the better life expectancy will be. Especially looking at the US I thought most people know that US doesn't get much value compared to the money spent. Was that really controversial?

My point is that there's very little to suggest US healthcare is uniquely ineffective. There rapidly diminishing returns to health spending and US outcomes are badly handicapped by factors like obesity and homicide. Maybe try actually reading it though?

Oh fuck off, you condescending cunt.

By the way, your site is shit and this article dull and unreadable.

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#16

Post by oezi »

rcafdm wrote: post #7
Ididntdothis wrote: post #3

This starts with saying that there is a popular telling that the more money a country spends the better life expectancy will be. Especially looking at the US I thought most people know that US doesn't get much value compared to the money spent. Was that really controversial?

My point is that there's very little to suggest US healthcare is uniquely ineffective. There rapidly diminishing returns to health spending and US outcomes are badly handicapped by factors like obesity and homicide. Maybe try actually reading it though?

(I think you get downvoted here, because it is a long read and while extremely well argued on data, it could benefit from more of a narrative at times. I often felt a tad lost even though it was a great read)

The question that arises for me from the article is: what should society shift spending towards/away from healthcare to receive the most life expectancy gains? Fight obesity, transport safety, drugs? Is any areas of those amicable to be solved by spending?

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#17

Post by jorblumesea »

jedharris wrote: post #2

Very long and well argued review of sources of excess mortality in developed countries. Bottom line: Obesity! and other non-medical factors like automobiles. Big implications about how we should spend money to increase life expectancy.

> Obesity! and other non-medical factors like automobiles

Socialized medicine and other forms of "planned state healthcare" seem to do a better job promoting lifestyle changes and preventative medicine, which reduces the costs of these externalities.

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#19

Post by jorblumesea »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #11
Ididntdothis wrote: post #3

This starts with saying that there is a popular telling that the more money a country spends the better life expectancy will be. Especially looking at the US I thought most people know that US doesn't get much value compared to the money spent. Was that really controversial?

I think the controversial idea is that the USA healthcare system is operating on the same efficiency curve as other developed nations. That is to say, a socialized healthcare system with the same spending is unlikely to provide any improvements in life expectancy.

> socialized healthcare system with the same spending is unlikely to provide any improvements in life expectancy.

That's probably not true, because as the author pointed out, Obesity is considered an "external factor" but many countries with socialized medicine have programs to tackle these issues. Americans lack "preventive maintenance" programs that are a given in Europe. I think we all agree throwing money at the problem will not lead to enhanced outcomes, but to extrapolate that to mean that socialized medicine won't lead to a different outcome is not correct.

A classic example is physical rehab. In the US, getting insurers to pay for physical therapy is difficult and often capped. This in turn reduces long term mobility and leads to issues down the road. In Europe, it's far easier to get physical therapy leading to better long term quality of life.

Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare

#20

Post by shkkmo »

rcafdm wrote: post #7
Ididntdothis wrote: post #3

This starts with saying that there is a popular telling that the more money a country spends the better life expectancy will be. Especially looking at the US I thought most people know that US doesn't get much value compared to the money spent. Was that really controversial?

My point is that there's very little to suggest US healthcare is uniquely ineffective. There rapidly diminishing returns to health spending and US outcomes are badly handicapped by factors like obesity and homicide. Maybe try actually reading it though?

I followedany of your arguments, but I definitely started skimming at times to gather the main points. It would have been nice to have you main points with the most informative charts that illustrate your conclusions in the article, with links to sub-articles on each particular step of your argument that contain the additional analysis to support your conclusions.

Donu you also suggest that high levels of health care spending are more effective than we might expect since the wealth that allows more spending also come with higher obesity and larger overdose risks?

Is there one of your charts that indicates which countries have seen the best returns from higher levels of health care spending?

Post reply on HN