4 ms·

More: For "be X times more/less likely to have babies" they use the per capita birth rate, which is strongly affected by age distribution, as opposed to the ag

More: For "be X times more/less likely to have babies" they use the per capita birth rate, which is strongly affected by age distribution, as opposed to the age-adjusted Total Fertility Rate. For "spend X% more/less on health care" they show total public and private spending, i.e. they include government subsidies, so that Israel's less generous welfare state shows up as "you spend 50% less than Germans on healthcare". Which, no.

Closi 5y ago
Well the healthcare numbers have some other interesting biases - for instance that paying less on healthcare is implied as good (as it’s coloured in green rather than red). But this then puts, for instance, Botswana as green for healthcare spending when compared to the UK despite the UK health outcomes being better. Also, when I clicked on Botswana I also noticed that their GDP per capita figures are completely wrong.
pessimizer 5y ago
> For "spend X% more/less on health care" they show total public and private spending Absolutely agree with the first one, but for healthcare, public + private spending is the reasonable number to use. Not talking about the real number hides a lot of sins, such as the fact that US public spending on healthcare is already as much per capita as fully socialized systems, and allowed M4A to be attacked as "doubling" health care spending when it actually lowered it. Also, if I were a "run the government like a household" conservative, I'd add that the money comes from the taxpayer anyway (although that's wrong.)
q1w2 5y ago
When an article or website clearly showcases their agenda, you should expect that they cherry pick and misrepresent data. Conclusions need to be data-driven, rather than agenda-driven. A good sign of this is when data presented doesn't demonstrate a clear conclusion, and when different articles show analyses that initially seem to support different agendas. Truth is about nuance and nuance complicated and confusing - often seemingly contradictory on the surface.

Closi 5y ago

Well the healthcare numbers have some other interesting biases - for instance that paying less on healthcare is implied as good (as it’s coloured in green rather than red). But this then puts, for instance, Botswana as green for healthcare spending when compared to the UK despite the UK health outcomes being better. Also, when I clicked on Botswana I also noticed that their GDP per capita figures are completely wrong.

pessimizer 5y ago

> For "spend X% more/less on health care" they show total public and private spending Absolutely agree with the first one, but for healthcare, public + private spending is the reasonable number to use. Not talking about the real number hides a lot of sins, such as the fact that US public spending on healthcare is already as much per capita as fully socialized systems, and allowed M4A to be attacked as "doubling" health care spending when it actually lowered it. Also, if I were a "run the government like a household" conservative, I'd add that the money comes from the taxpayer anyway (although that's wrong.)

q1w2 5y ago

When an article or website clearly showcases their agenda, you should expect that they cherry pick and misrepresent data. Conclusions need to be data-driven, rather than agenda-driven. A good sign of this is when data presented doesn't demonstrate a clear conclusion, and when different articles show analyses that initially seem to support different agendas. Truth is about nuance and nuance complicated and confusing - often seemingly contradictory on the surface.