3 ms·
> Yes, but let's say in the U.S. the numbers are 100% survival for the richest 50% and 0% survival for the other 50%. Clearly the average survival rate is 50%.
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> Yes, but let's say in the U.S. the numbers are 100% survival for the richest 50% and 0% survival for the other 50%. Clearly the average survival rate is 50%. Now let's say the Netherlands has a flat survival rate of 50%. If I don't consider wealth, it doesn't matter which country I get care in. If I'm at 49.999% of wealth in the U.S., the difference is 0% survival vs 50%.
Instead of just making up numbers that could hypothetically mean something, take a look at what's already been linked in this thread and you'll see that's not the case.
- davvolun 8y agoDo any of those numbers refute my point? Instead of saying "take a look at what's already been linked" either link something that refutes my point or make a clear argument that does so. The statement was: > To play devil's advocate, looking at 5-year survival rates by country, you'd be 15-20% more likely to survive in the US after you contract cancer than in the Netherlands. YMMV. I asked "Did you factor wealth into that?" and then backed it up with a hypothetical that shows how it could matter. I see no comments regarding whether the numbers given factor wealth in or if anyone can clearly show it doesn't matter. You want to challenge my claim that quality of healthcare is correlated with ability to pay, fine, but "look it up" isn't an argument.