10 ms·
Agreed. Here's the same data in a scatter plot (second chart down). Far, far easier to grasp. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12
by bengebre 17y ago
Agreed. Here's the same data in a scatter plot (second chart down). Far, far easier to grasp.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/healthcare_spen.html http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009...
- scott_s 17y agoThank you. As I suspected, I can immediately read the scatter plot. And the correlation that I wondered about is indeed there.
- jstevens85 17y agoThe problem with the scatter plot is that you lose the average cost/average life expectancy info. On the original plot, the UK corresponds roughly to average health care costs and average LE. The slope shows if the country is getting value for money. The upward slope of New Zealand shows that they are spending less money per person than the average yet getting better than average results. The downward slope of Denmark shows that they spend more than the average for inferior results. That information is lost in the scatter plot.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- scott_s 17y agoBut it could easily be added in by having horizontal and vertical lines added that read "average healthcare cost" and "average life expectancy."
- pieceofpeace 17y agoIMO, the slope of the lines in National Geographic chart show the Spending/LE relation better.