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

We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#41

Post by pedrocr »

lupin_sansei wrote: post #32
bilbo0s wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh . . . Had to call this one. Full Disclosure: Cancer Researcher here. I looked into how to analyze data over time to elicit better outcomes in a former life. Cancer is a hard problem, REALLY hard. Hematological Cancers as well, super hard. It is less than wise to judge a health care system by its ability to treat cancer. Literally, there are often times when a patient is being attended solely for the purposes of le…

I think it's fair enough to ask how come a country that claims to have one of the best healthcare systems in the world (the UK) has such bad cancer survival rates?

From what I have seen about the UK system it is very much based on a cost-benefit tradeoff for treatments. Basically they do all the treatments that fit in the budget ordered by how many extra years of life expectancy each will add on average to the patient. Other countries have much less rational ways of going about it so it may very well be that on the specific case of cancer they are bellow standard just because the standard is irrationally high.

Statistics about life expectancy at birth put them at number 25 slightly above the EU average and the US. They are still bellow a bunch of other European countries and of course life expectancy is a function of more than the health service itself but also the habits of the population in terms of diet, exercise, etc.

Edit: According to this (random google search):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-dea...

The UK actually beats the US and most of Europe on the number of actual cancer deaths. So either its healthcare or its eating/exercise habits is doing enough about cancer prevention to make them perform well on general survival. Maybe they do perform badly once you have cancer though.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#42

Post by [deleted] »

chrischen wrote: post #10
pedrocr wrote: post #4

The statistics are misleading and muddy: - Comparing adjusted disposable income between Scandinavia and the US is highly misleading. The disposable income in Scandinavia doesn't need to cover any healthcare, education and other public services. I wonder how much, if any, the difference is once you adjust for that. - The argument mistakes distribution of wealth with average output per capita. Portugal is in the bottom…

Exactly. Watermelon cost like 50 cents in China, doesn't mean people are wealthier there. Although for some reason the iPhone costs several hundred dollars more... But I'm sure they'll come to their senses soon and lower it.

[deleted]

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#44

Post by eric_t »

lupin_sansei wrote: post #34
guelo wrote: post #29

In the US the average worker works 1,777 hours per year, in Norway it's 1,328. That's a lot of extra time for family, friends, hobbies, etc. They've made a choice about their work/life balance and we (or our capitalist masters) have made a choice about what is important to us. How much salary would you give up in exchange for 25% less time at work? Also, the Norwegian bottom 10% makes twice as much as the American bo…

Could you supply some sources to back up your claims, particularly about the crime and social problems in Norway vs the US, and also work hours.

The police in Norway doesn't carry guns, that should give you an indication...

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#46

Post by pedrocr »

anamax wrote: post #38
pedrocr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study that compares the US to Europe (linked in another commend) does these comparisons: - Compare GDP between US and Europe and show that US is higher per capita on average. No debate there. - Compare private consumption between the US and Europe, specifically stating that it does not control for healthcare and education. From page 14: Different countries’ choices of public commitment influence, through taxation…

> So on that count Americans do appear to be richer, assuming of course they are getting equal average amounts of education and healthcare on their private purchases as the Europeans are getting on their tax dollars. That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things othe…

>That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points.

I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out.

>One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported.

It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same.

>Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks".

Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Choice need not be only about how to allocate private spending, you can also influence the tax/welfare situation.

>How about we compare average cancer survival rates?

I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. Anyway, according to this:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-dea...

The US is middle of the board. Sweden, Finland and Norway all beat the US. The only surprising one on that board for me was the Netherlands, with such high rates.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#47

Post by berntb »

dschobel wrote: post #2

It's fascinating to see how even a nation with a free media can still have total buy-in to an entirely delusional self-image. Scary stuff.

If Norway is as Sweden/Finland, the food prices can be seen as a result of monopolists/oligopolies, Microsoft-style.

Since the population still mostly read local media, they aren't aware of reality. And it is possible for the food chains to avoid getting the population enlightened using large ad accounts in the media.

This has become a bit better in Sweden over the last decade, but e.g. Finland is still almost as expensive [edit: almost as expensive as Norway].

A fun data point is when the only non-ad supported tv in Sweden found a big scandal about remarking minced meat, almost certainly based on whistleblowers. Those whistleblowers have certainly talked to other media -- and to the controlling government agency for years... without effect.

(I've never heard the term "regulatory capture" in Swedish, it seems our political masters don't want us to know. 1/2 :-)

So yes, it is the media -- and lobbyists.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#48

Post by wisty »

lupin_sansei wrote: post #32
bilbo0s wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh . . . Had to call this one. Full Disclosure: Cancer Researcher here. I looked into how to analyze data over time to elicit better outcomes in a former life. Cancer is a hard problem, REALLY hard. Hematological Cancers as well, super hard. It is less than wise to judge a health care system by its ability to treat cancer. Literally, there are often times when a patient is being attended solely for the purposes of le…

I think it's fair enough to ask how come a country that claims to have one of the best healthcare systems in the world (the UK) has such bad cancer survival rates?

Cancer is what kills you if nothing else does. Either that or heart failure. If people are dying from TB or other easily treated (or prevented) diseases, then it's time to question the health system.

Early detection is a huge factor in treatable cancers, and that might be social factors (Brits refusing to go for a checkup), rather than their health-care system.

The biggest difference is between men and women; not between countries. Perhaps women are more likely to get their lumps checked?

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#49

Post by sbt »

Bruce Bawer reminds me of a religious zealot, having been confronted with facts forcing him to accept that the world is more nuanced than what the American post-war era he grew up in propounded. The reaction is predictable, but ensues nonetheless.

Re: We're Rich, You're Not. End of Story.

#50

Post by Confusion »

These comparisons are obviously bogus. If Norway is worse than the US, why do they have a good public healthcare system and a much lower poverty rate? And don't get me started on that slur about 'drug users crowding the streets'. Please, check your facts.

About 'frugal living' and 'underpaid teachers': perhaps we feel rich, precisely because we are satisfied with our ten year old toaster and our home-made lunch. Partly because we don't feel the need to consume-consume-consume, as the US has brainwashed its citizens to do. Partly because of simple cultural differences: Norwegians like to bring their own lunch; Spaniards like to go to a neighbouring lunchroom. The relative cost of said lunchroom has nothing to do with it.

Also nice to see this together with http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=918590 . Anyone wonder why no European state has these kinds of problems?

Post reply on HN