3 ms·

If you research "amenable", "avoidable", "preventable", and "treatable" mortality, you will find similar conclusions from studies that focus on specific aspects

If you research "amenable", "avoidable", "preventable", and "treatable" mortality, you will find similar conclusions from studies that focus on specific aspects of the effects of healthcare on mortality. The results are not all that different. The USA lags other rich nations, and even middle income nations like Costa Rica and Chile. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2023_7a7afb35-en/full-report/avoidable-mortality-preventable-and-treatable_e7407977.html#title-ab071a3f22 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2023...

Schiendelman 5mo ago
Those all include obesity - this is kind of my point. The healthcare system isn't what's making people get a lot of these illnesses.
- defrost 5mo ago
  Part of the Australian public healthcare system is public health and well living announcements and controls on the worst of the worst junk food that various corps attempt to sell. Macca's in Australia has healthier food than McDonalds in the US, exercise is very common place, etc. Speaking of Obesity - Australian PSA (1975): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8
  - Schiendelman 5mo ago
    Our public health system does similar, many cities have soda taxes for instance and we put public health money into encouraging activity and subsidizing organizations that make people get active. But those investments or lack thereof aren't the root cause of our obesity crisis. That's land use, urban planning, subsidies to corn, completely outside the healthcare system. If you made the healthcare system as perfect as you wanted it to be, you would be fighting an uphill battle with these problems, it's very questionable whether you'd have any real impact. There are studies of healthcare system efficacy. Rate of diagnosis relative to likely incidents of particular illnesses. Treatment effectiveness after diagnosis. And frankly, the US does much better than most countries when you measure just the healthcare system. But people don't like that, they challenge it immediately, because it's not what they want to believe.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      > If you made the healthcare system as perfect as you wanted it to be, you would be fighting an uphill battle with these problems, it's very questionable whether you'd have any real impact. If public health policy was sensible it would heavily regulate high-fructose syrup, not subsidise corn, plan cities and suburbs to have plentiful free access open space and exercise areas, good public transport, walkways and cycle ways. As happens in Australia, ideally soon to regulate high-sucrose levels in soft drinks to close up that sugar gap. > And frankly, the US does much better than most countries when you measure just the healthcare system. And still has lower life expectancy and cancer recovery rates than Australia. But people don't like that, they challenge it immediately, because it's not what they want to believe.
      - Schiendelman 5mo ago
        I'm not entirely sure public health policy influences land use anywhere… Australia and the US have nearly identical cancer survival rates according to CONCORD-3, with the US around half a percentage point ahead. CONCORD-4 isn't done yet since it's only been 7 years since the last cohort of diagnoses. What are you seeing that says something different? Is there a newer data set I'm not aware of?

Schiendelman 5mo ago

Those all include obesity - this is kind of my point. The healthcare system isn't what's making people get a lot of these illnesses.

defrost 5mo ago
Part of the Australian public healthcare system is public health and well living announcements and controls on the worst of the worst junk food that various corps attempt to sell. Macca's in Australia has healthier food than McDonalds in the US, exercise is very common place, etc. Speaking of Obesity - Australian PSA (1975): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8
- Schiendelman 5mo ago
  Our public health system does similar, many cities have soda taxes for instance and we put public health money into encouraging activity and subsidizing organizations that make people get active. But those investments or lack thereof aren't the root cause of our obesity crisis. That's land use, urban planning, subsidies to corn, completely outside the healthcare system. If you made the healthcare system as perfect as you wanted it to be, you would be fighting an uphill battle with these problems, it's very questionable whether you'd have any real impact. There are studies of healthcare system efficacy. Rate of diagnosis relative to likely incidents of particular illnesses. Treatment effectiveness after diagnosis. And frankly, the US does much better than most countries when you measure just the healthcare system. But people don't like that, they challenge it immediately, because it's not what they want to believe.
  - defrost 5mo ago
    > If you made the healthcare system as perfect as you wanted it to be, you would be fighting an uphill battle with these problems, it's very questionable whether you'd have any real impact. If public health policy was sensible it would heavily regulate high-fructose syrup, not subsidise corn, plan cities and suburbs to have plentiful free access open space and exercise areas, good public transport, walkways and cycle ways. As happens in Australia, ideally soon to regulate high-sucrose levels in soft drinks to close up that sugar gap. > And frankly, the US does much better than most countries when you measure just the healthcare system. And still has lower life expectancy and cancer recovery rates than Australia. But people don't like that, they challenge it immediately, because it's not what they want to believe.
    - Schiendelman 5mo ago
      I'm not entirely sure public health policy influences land use anywhere… Australia and the US have nearly identical cancer survival rates according to CONCORD-3, with the US around half a percentage point ahead. CONCORD-4 isn't done yet since it's only been 7 years since the last cohort of diagnoses. What are you seeing that says something different? Is there a newer data set I'm not aware of?