Does the article address quality of life?
No one particularly thinks that artificial knees are life extending.
A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm the author of the blog (RCA). No, I haven't studied this narrow question, though it's somewhat tangential to the arguments I've advanced (outcomes; prices; aggregate costs; etc). I have, however, seen several studies that suggest "medical bankruptcies" have very little to do with medical debt and much to do with the effects of their health on their employment/earned income (also similar patterns in Canada an…
Why do you feel that aggregate cost is more relevant than cost to patient? If other systems are able to have the same outcome at more affordable rates for the average patient, isn't that better.
My analysis strongly suggests costs strongly track with income levels. Relative Prices rise with income, but purchasing power also rises, so it's not necessarily less affordable relative to incomes actually earned domestically.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-th...
Some people may prefer a regime that offers more insulation (socialization) from the true costs (generally overstated IMO), but that's something of a different problem with different potential solutions than the popular notion that US prices are inexplicably high or outcomes inexplicably bad where we're (presumably) likely to win-win-win if only we copy the regimes found elsewhere.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#33The blog Random Critical Analysis has made a good argument that Americans spend so much on healthcare simply because Americans spend so much on everything. Healthcare isn't exceptional in this regard. If you replace the usual GDP per capita measure of income by a measure of actual individual consumption, the US lies right on the trend line, just with higher healthcare spending and higher overall consumption than everyone else.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2018/11/19/why-everything...
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#34Very 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.
Could it be that the socialized medical systems of which you speak are Western? Many of the European systems exist within a realm where people ate and continue to eat relatively healthy food due to historical circumstances. Further, they had and continue to have economies based around the idea of walkable cities. These two factors reduce the chances of obesity and the risk of death due to cars. The only way for America to approach either of these is to have everyone one to move into planned mega-cities.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#35I always shop for the lowest car price.
I never shop for the lowest health care price.
In fact, if it's more expensive I love it.
I'm not paying for it.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 area…
Why optimize for life expectancy? Why not remove the social stigma from suicide? Let people live as they want and drop out whenever.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#37The blog Random Critical Analysis has made a good argument that Americans spend so much on healthcare simply because Americans spend so much on everything. Healthcare isn't exceptional in this regard. If you replace the usual GDP per capita measure of income by a measure of actual individual consumption, the US lies right on the trend line, just with higher healthcare spending and higher overall consumption than ever…
You can't spend more on everything, not on a percent of GDP basis. This is a stupid idea since every GDP is limited to 100%. If you spend more you have to take debt and spend future GDP
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#38The best thing I've read about cross-country longevity, and I don't even care about its main point (ie USA healthcare spending). If you have a Patreon account or something similar please post it. I want more of this.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#39The blog Random Critical Analysis has made a good argument that Americans spend so much on healthcare simply because Americans spend so much on everything. Healthcare isn't exceptional in this regard. If you replace the usual GDP per capita measure of income by a measure of actual individual consumption, the US lies right on the trend line, just with higher healthcare spending and higher overall consumption than ever…
You can't spend more on everything, not on a percent of GDP basis. This is a stupid idea since every GDP is limited to 100%. If you spend more you have to take debt and spend future GDP
You absolutely can in real terms.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-th...
Also while I agree that 100% of a GDP is a reasonable approximation of an upper limit in practice, that's not necessarily strictly true either. GDP measures domestic production, not the income available to residents. The income available to residents can certainly be much less than GDP (e.g., Ireland, Luxembourg, etc), so the reverse can be true in principle too.
Re: A tale of two covariates: Why OWID and company are wrong about US healthcare
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't spend more on everything, not on a percent of GDP basis. This is a stupid idea since every GDP is limited to 100%. If you spend more you have to take debt and spend future GDP
You absolutely can in real terms. https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2019/12/03/no-means-no-th... Also while I agree that 100% of a GDP is a reasonable approximation of an upper limit in practice, that's not necessarily strictly true either. GDP measures domestic production, not the income available to residents. The income available to residents can certainly be much less than GDP (e.g., Ireland, Luxembourg, etc), s…
Since healthcare is priced into every salary, I'd expect at least some big portion to come through on non-imported goods (though if it was 2X it wouldn't on its own bring every other thing to 2X).