Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So we pay more money then other countries but > don't get better outcomes? Yes, exactly. > Could we save money and get the same outcomes? That seems like an obvious corollary of the above... But yes, I think we could. > And since we get worse outcomes then they do Not necessarily worse; just not better. Measuring and comparing outcomes across different populations is hard enough that it's hard to say more than "our…
Your logic works both ways. If you say it's hard to measure then how do you know that get the same outcomes? "Number of procedures per capita per year" is a horrible measure. It assumes that procedures done is a good proxy for overall health, which it isn't. Public health (clean food and water, trash pickup, promoting exercise and outside activities, cutting down on smoking, etc) is also important. Here's a scenario.…
My whole point is that it's not a good proxy for overall health. However it _is_ a good proxy for amount of money spent on the system. Which is how you can end up spending more but not getting better overall health.
Do read what I said again. You're arguing against a strawman.
Which