same way you screen callers on a radio show

I think you dropped this:

https://www.apnews.com/3f4c95a3353b4ed3b74763332ddb0bad

For those curious:

I wonder just how much bigger the US is in comparison to those countries?

You don't think the per capita part is relevant then?

Not as much as you think, considering how vastly different parts of the U.S is.
I'm not saying it couldn't work. I'm just saying we can't just copy their ideas and use them.

All those countries are pretty different too. And no one is saying that just copying things is going to work. What it is telling though is that there is a vast discrepancy between your health care expenditure and the life expectancy.

once a certain quality threshold is passed, even better healthcare doesnt improve life expectancy too much anymore because you're running into the biological boundaries of what is possible.
very bad healthcare, on the other hand, can have a very strong adverse effect on life expectancy.

therefore, even if we hold the expenditures per capita constant, life expectancy will suffer from high inequality. some rich folks in the US are overtreated and overprovided, while others are underprovided.

essentially, the higher inequality that he US have compared to most other industrialized countries is showing in these healthcare results. which is also why it is so difficult to change the american healthcare system: the redistribution of wealth and risks that such a system change had to entail would very fundamentally go against the way the american society is organized.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 27 2019 05:09am