4 ms·

This article reminds me a lot of conspiracy theorists and their "anomaly hunting" - throwing out as many anomalies as possible leaving little chance to consider

by Achorny 17y ago

This article reminds me a lot of conspiracy theorists and their "anomaly hunting" - throwing out as many anomalies as possible leaving little chance to consider/rebut them before moving onto the next thing, and claiming victory when no one bothers. I'm not an expert on many of the things listed, but many stick out as just not making any sense: First of all, holy special pleading batman! Pretty much right at the beginning he redefines health care to exclude things he admits work - diet, exercise, sleep, not smoking, etc. Who does he think figured out that smoking was bad? Or how much exercise and sleep is enough, and how much is too much? Or what foods are good for you and which are bad? He also claims that there are "dozens of studies of the aggregate health effects of medicine", but most of the studies he describes are very specific - several only studying the last six months of people's lives, ignoring how many cases of people living extra years because of medicine? He also admits that increased social status improves health while claiming that increased medical spending does not. But it's well known that the rich can afford better health care, and doesn't explain how to (or cite any papers that) control for this. Lastly, he only considers length of life and totally ignores quality of life. I take an antidepressant for my anxiety, and while it probably will not affect the length of my life, it sure as hell is worth every penny in improving the quality of my life!

Zak 17y ago
He's talking about health care spending. It doesn't cost money to not smoke, to select certain more healthful food options or to walk five blocks instead of driving. All of these can and should be considered health care, but aren't usually measured in studies of health care spending or availability of health care.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
I strongly suggest you read the article before commenting. Pretty much right at the beginning he redefines health care to exclude things he admits work - diet, exercise, sleep, not smoking, etc. No he doesn't. That was a bad choice of title on my part when I submitted the article. I should have titled it "Medical Care Doesn't Affect Health (on the margin)". But like most people, I use the terms "health care" and "medical care" interchangeably. The bigram "health care" does not appear once in the article. He also admits that increased social status improves health while claiming that increased medical spending does not. But it's well known that the rich can afford better health care, and doesn't explain how to (or cite any papers that) control for this. This is simply not true. He cites a number of cross section studies which compare rich/poor/etc people receiving more medicine to rich/poor/etc people receiving less. He also cites the RAND experiment which was actually a randomized trial addressing the same question. Lastly, he only considers length of life and totally ignores quality of life... False. The RAND experiment studied various health measures, not mortality.
- mmt 17y ago
  >Lastly, he only considers length of life and totally ignores quality of life... > >False. The RAND experiment studied various health measures, not mortality. That may be the case, but the author makes it clear enough that, even in this case, it is mortality with which he is concerned: "The RAND experiment was not quite large enough to see mortality effects directly, and so the plan was to track..." I must agree that there is a distinct absence of focus on quality of life, which I believe is the crux of the issue, especially at the expensive margins, near the end of life.

by Achorny 17y ago

Zak 17y ago

He's talking about health care spending. It doesn't cost money to not smoke, to select certain more healthful food options or to walk five blocks instead of driving. All of these can and should be considered health care, but aren't usually measured in studies of health care spending or availability of health care.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I strongly suggest you read the article before commenting. Pretty much right at the beginning he redefines health care to exclude things he admits work - diet, exercise, sleep, not smoking, etc. No he doesn't. That was a bad choice of title on my part when I submitted the article. I should have titled it "Medical Care Doesn't Affect Health (on the margin)". But like most people, I use the terms "health care" and "medical care" interchangeably. The bigram "health care" does not appear once in the article. He also admits that increased social status improves health while claiming that increased medical spending does not. But it's well known that the rich can afford better health care, and doesn't explain how to (or cite any papers that) control for this. This is simply not true. He cites a number of cross section studies which compare rich/poor/etc people receiving more medicine to rich/poor/etc people receiving less. He also cites the RAND experiment which was actually a randomized trial addressing the same question. Lastly, he only considers length of life and totally ignores quality of life... False. The RAND experiment studied various health measures, not mortality.

mmt 17y ago
>Lastly, he only considers length of life and totally ignores quality of life... > >False. The RAND experiment studied various health measures, not mortality. That may be the case, but the author makes it clear enough that, even in this case, it is mortality with which he is concerned: "The RAND experiment was not quite large enough to see mortality effects directly, and so the plan was to track..." I must agree that there is a distinct absence of focus on quality of life, which I believe is the crux of the issue, especially at the expensive margins, near the end of life.