4 ms·

>That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the

by pedrocr 17y ago

>That assumption is rather dodgy on a couple of points. I thought so too, that is why I pointed it out. >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. >Another is that a rational person may choose to spend money on things other than healthcare and education. Forcing them to spend it on healthcare and education can make them poorer, aka "less bang for same bucks". Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Choice need not be only about how to allocate private spending, you can also influence the tax/welfare situation. >How about we compare average cancer survival rates? I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. Anyway, according to this: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-dea... The US is middle of the board. Sweden, Finland and Norway all beat the US. The only surprising one on that board for me was the Netherlands, with such high rates.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on an ipod, but is instead forced to spend $100 on education which they only value at $80, they have lost $20 of value. Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.
- pedrocr 17y ago
  Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. (...) Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose. That is all true of course. What I was pointing out is that the democratic group decision to spend more on healthcare is also a spending decision. The counterpoint is what you mentioned, that 50% - 1 could be against it. In Scandinavia however you will find that support for the welfare state is very high. Another important consideration is that the public healthcare in these countries tends to be much more efficient per person than the one you get for you private dollars otherwise. You could of course argue that that is just the market currently being inefficient.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Support for "the welfare state" in the abstract is irrelevant. The relevant question is "would person X purchase retail goods or health care if given the choice?" People might support the welfare state for various other reasons, including signaling [1], compromise and ignorance [2]. Regarding more efficient public health care (assuming it to be true for the moment, I've seen no compelling evidence for this), all this does is reduces the deadweight loss by lowering the price of the unwanted goods. [1] I voted for X because I'm {religious/moral/not racist/hard working/$OTHER_TRIBAL_IDENTITY}. [2] This is due both to politicians lying ("I won't force people to buy health insurance they can't afford") as well as to people not having a clue ("death panels").
anamax 17y ago
> >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. > It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs. > I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. As someone else has posted, the "not get cancer" stuff, which isn't due to health care, overmatches what happens when you get cancer, which is when health care matters.
- pedrocr 17y ago
  Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs. What I assumed and is true is that healthcare is more private in the US than in Scandinavia, which it is. So the argument still holds that if you are comparing private spending in the US that will include more healthcare than in Scandinavia. Retail spending however will not as you don't buy healthcare as a retail good. >As someone else has posted, the "not get cancer" stuff, which isn't due to health care, overmatches what happens when you get cancer, which is when health care matters. What makes you think "not get cancer" has nothing to do with healthcare? Two very large healthcare factors come to mind. If you die sooner from another illness you won't get cancer and if you get continuous preventive medicine you won't get as much cancer. Diet and other unrelated factors will be important as well but "not getting cancer" has a lot to do with health care. The other flaw in the whole "cancer survival is higher so healthcare must be better" argument is that although cancer is a very important illness it is far from the only important one and not even the major cause of death. Having very good cancer survival rates could just mean that the US healthcare spends an irrational amount of resources on it, neglecting other diseases. But I don't really know.

by pedrocr 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Very true of course, but then you can't really argue that the Scandinavians are worse off because they can buy less retail goods because they put more money into their government to get healthcare and education. Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. If person X would choose to spend $100 on an ipod, but is instead forced to spend $100 on education which they only value at $80, they have lost $20 of value. Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose.

pedrocr 17y ago
Actually you can. That's part of the deadweight loss of taxation: you are forced to spend money on stuff you don't want and are unable to spend on stuff you do want. (...) Now, in a democracy, people in the situation of person X may only make up 50% - 1 of the population, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose. That is all true of course. What I was pointing out is that the democratic group decision to spend more on healthcare is also a spending decision. The counterpoint is what you mentioned, that 50% - 1 could be against it. In Scandinavia however you will find that support for the welfare state is very high. Another important consideration is that the public healthcare in these countries tends to be much more efficient per person than the one you get for you private dollars otherwise. You could of course argue that that is just the market currently being inefficient.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Support for "the welfare state" in the abstract is irrelevant. The relevant question is "would person X purchase retail goods or health care if given the choice?" People might support the welfare state for various other reasons, including signaling [1], compromise and ignorance [2]. Regarding more efficient public health care (assuming it to be true for the moment, I've seen no compelling evidence for this), all this does is reduces the deadweight loss by lowering the price of the unwanted goods. [1] I voted for X because I'm {religious/moral/not racist/hard working/$OTHER_TRIBAL_IDENTITY}. [2] This is due both to politicians lying ("I won't force people to buy health insurance they can't afford") as well as to people not having a clue ("death panels").

anamax 17y ago

> >One is that a lot of healthcare and education in the US is tax-supported. > It may very well be but less of it is compared to Scandinavia so the point is the same. Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs. > I could only find cancer deaths not survival rates once you do have cancer. In a lot of ways that is what matters and can mean better preventive care. On the other hand it adds a bunch of environmental factors. As someone else has posted, the "not get cancer" stuff, which isn't due to health care, overmatches what happens when you get cancer, which is when health care matters.

pedrocr 17y ago
Not so fast. You wrote "It does then compare retail consumption which shouldn't include any of these things and thus be more objective." You otherwise assumed that health care is largely private in the US. It's not - it's about half public. Moreover, the public spending is concentrated on the poor. So, they're getting govt healthcare and buying big screen TVs. What I assumed and is true is that healthcare is more private in the US than in Scandinavia, which it is. So the argument still holds that if you are comparing private spending in the US that will include more healthcare than in Scandinavia. Retail spending however will not as you don't buy healthcare as a retail good. >As someone else has posted, the "not get cancer" stuff, which isn't due to health care, overmatches what happens when you get cancer, which is when health care matters. What makes you think "not get cancer" has nothing to do with healthcare? Two very large healthcare factors come to mind. If you die sooner from another illness you won't get cancer and if you get continuous preventive medicine you won't get as much cancer. Diet and other unrelated factors will be important as well but "not getting cancer" has a lot to do with health care. The other flaw in the whole "cancer survival is higher so healthcare must be better" argument is that although cancer is a very important illness it is far from the only important one and not even the major cause of death. Having very good cancer survival rates could just mean that the US healthcare spends an irrational amount of resources on it, neglecting other diseases. But I don't really know.