3 ms·
Note: World Health Organization report is from 2000
by huxley 10y ago
Note: World Health Organization report is from 2000
- yummyfajitas 10y agoDo you have something more current?
- throwaway2048 10y agowhat you really mean to ask is "Do you have something more current that supports my biases about healthcare"
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 10y agoWe have something more relevant, which is that the US spends far more on healthcare than anywhere else, but is in the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com... > While the USA outspent the UK on healthcare (£6,311 and £2,777 per person2 respectively) in 2014, average life expectancy at birth in the USA was 78.8, compared with 81.4 in the UK. > Despite spending, by far, the largest amount on healthcare, the USA was among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoWe are all aware that the US spends a lot on healthcare. The article we are discussing provides a good explanation of why. The fact that health care and health outcomes are minimally correlated is well known; see RAND, Oregon, and lots of non-RCT studies that generally fail to find much correlation (e.g. this one, which made the rounds recently https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2513561 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/25135... ). I'm not sure what the relevance of that is to this article, however.
- conistonwater 10y agoAFAICT, the article explains it only in the statistical sense of the word, not the plain-English sense, so I think you're missing the point of the comment.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoThe plain english explanation is that Americans consume a lot of everything relative to GDP/capita, and health care is not an exception to this.