A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz
(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)
The market has solved it.
You just don't realize what the market has solved for. It didn't solve the problem of expensive healthcare, it solved the problem of how to maximize profits for the wealthy.
That's what people don't understand about "the market". What you think it's doing isn't what it's actually doing.
Yup, the free market and health care are not compatible because the free market works on principles of supply and demand. But when you have a limited resource that people will literally pay anything for (their health) - well you can see where the problem is.
If the free market had any real competitors, the problem would genuinely solve itself in favor of the consumer. We see this with any new tech where a bunch of new firms try to win customers by any means necessary in those first few years.
The problem as always is: where are the competitors after X years, and are these "competitors" actually competing anymore?
The solution as always is: regulate. Ensure competition. Ensure cartels aren't price fixing. But no one wants to hear that
The streaming market has tons of competition. So then why are prices endlessly rising and content being removed and the value being made worse with ads?
The video game market also has tons of companies in it, and yet most of them are making the experience worse with ads and service-based games.
I want to hear it. I want to hear it in my music. My daily discussions. My podcasts. On my television. In my social media. I cannot hear it enough. It's gives a joyous and wonderful feeling.
I have an honors minor in medical humanities and took several medical policy courses. We looked at this exact graph from previous years as well as several other huge sets of data/graphs/studies and anything else related to insurance you can imagine. Insurance is not a standard market commodity and does not follow the same trend or logic. The only way you can lower premiums in insurance is by reducing the risk in the pool, or increasing the pool size to dilute the risk. This is either increasing the total pool size by increasing premiums, getting more people, or being selective about who joins the risk pool. The third one was what was called "preexisting conditions" and kept high cost people from entering the risk pool and draining the funds. This got banned and increased premiums. By increasing competition you end up splitting up the pools, making everyone's premiums go up. This happened multiple times post ACA after the GOP started stripping out the funding and safeguards to prevent this. More and more competition opened up with artificially low premiums being subsidized by federal dollars, but then when the subsidies ended the premiums started jumping. Then when the premiums were jumping, new companies opened up to make more competition advertising lower rates, but then further fractured to pool sizes, leading to premiums skyrocketing. If you look back just 10 years ago there was a 3-5 year stretch of premiums increasing almost 30% year after year. It was due to all the competition opening up every year. This is why single payer systems have the lowest rates. If you have even one private company monopoly with a regulated cap on profits you would still end up with lower premiums. Then, if this single paying company was nationalized to take out the profit making middle man, the premiums are that much lower because your risk is spread across a massive pool. More competition in insurance makes the problem worse. I would agree with your stronger regulation though. There is a lot that can be done there.
I N N O V A T I O N Doctors in the US spend about 25% of their time dealing with insurance companies
In Germany the adminstrative effort including documentation is at 50%.
It's pretty disconcerting that we're the second worst after the US.
Sure. But the graphic is very much cherry picked. There is plenty of space between the US and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
What surprises me is the high rank of Australia!
What the heck are they doing?
But maybe the Germans can learn from the Australians something. Germany‘s System is such a inefficient mess… just the administrative effort to maintain dozens of public health care insurances… crazy!
I don't understand the points of this post.
Australia is very urbanised with the vast majority of the country clinging to the coastal rim. The interior of the country is vastly unpopulated.
Australia has a much better health outcomes than the US. Our fast food culture, although not great, cannot be compared to Americans.
The 'everything can kill you' thing is a meme. Yes, we have tons of venomous creatures but as we mostly live in the cities the rare deaths cause headlines and are not common place. Plus we don't experience mass shootings every week, let alone single gun deaths.
The single biggest benefit for Australian life expectancy is socialised medicine. It's not perfect, and insurance is encouraged, but a poor person in need of major medical intervention has almost identical access to health care as a fully insured person, and mostly with no financial outlay. In fact, an insured person may lie side-by-side in a hospital bed next to an uninsured person getting the same treatment.
Medical insurance is not tied to employment.
All this is under threat. Conservatives are attacking our health system and underfunding it. It is only a matter of time before we start tracking downwards like the US. The secret to a longer life expectancy is government regulation and social responsibility, a healthy personal lifestyle and not feeding the corporate medical parasites that sit between the patient and the required healthcare.
To add to @[email protected] 's points, Australia isn't afraid of foreigners, it has very high migration. You might be confused because of the government's reprehensible treatment of asylum seekers. Yes it was colonised by England, but internally, diversity is the most celebrated aspect of Australia.
Australia has been dubbed 'the lucky country' because despite a lack of smarts (manufacturing and other value added economic activity), we've always been able to dig things out of the ground and sell it (coal, wood, gas, food, gold...). Though Australia never developed a serious manufacturing sector, it has pivoted to a service economy instead, with that sector's highest export being higher education.
The lessons to learn from Australia is be rich, be on the other side of the world away from the world wars, and have high welfare spending (plenty of room for improvement though).
Is this a good comparison? Feels like we're missing all of the US administration, insurance is just a part of it.
Barely, but doctors here in Germany are always complaining about difficulties they have with insurances. Especially the dozens of different public insurances. System here is an unconsolidated mess. Apart from having optional private insurance.
Like my doctor working on treatment and not being buried with administrative tasks.
The best part is that it's only State spendings, people in the USA also pay for private insurance individually!
Americans essentially pay for our insurance 4 times.
we pay more tax dollars per patient than ay other country
We pay hundreds per person per month in insurance premiums
We pay all healthcare expenses until we hit our annual deductible
We they pay a co-pay percentage after all treatment beyond the deductible.
Everyone knows it's a broken system, but people are adamant that anything else would be communism or would make you lose an election.
The people worried about "losing an election" are paid by the people who profit from the broken system. The communism fear is a strawman that liberals use to excuse their worthless party.
Wait the life expectancy in the US is that low?!
It's actually lower in the poor-er regions.
I'm guessing the target goal is whatever they set retirement age to be.
(Yes, I realize they want to eliminate retirement entirely.)
..how did the line come about? How did they determine what the life expectancy would have been with less expenditure per capita?
My guess is that this was a gif at some point and the line is historical data
Definitely, you can see some lines in the top left zigzagging back left, which would not be possible if each was a function of the x-axis. In fact, both axes are a function of the hidden z-axis, which is time and comes in discrete yearly steps, the latest of which (2021) is highlighted.
At least one of those lines goes back on itself at some point, so my assumption is that it's tracking where each country has been over time.
Ooh good catch. That makes sense. Not sure I would call this beautiful, especially without any way to tell how much time has passed, but fair enough
My guess is that the line tracks what the life expectancy was when the expenditure per capita was that much? Might have to dig into their source to get more details.
There is a minimum amount which is likely the least some people spent on their health. So there is no interpolation I can see.
That doesn't make sense unless this was personal expenditure, which it doesn't seem to be
Abolish private health insurance corporations. The middlemen are bleeding us fuckin dry.
Yeah, but think of all that value generated for shareholders in America: What's a few million dead people compared to profit?
High life expentancy is communism tho
This makes complete sense as getting you to pay more for less is what private businesses are all about.
I think it's clear from the graph that USA is doing it right and the rest of the world needs to smarten up!
/s
We can do better. There’s still empty pixels on the right to fill.
I would really like to know how this graph was generated, because some expenditure per capita values have three different corresponding life expectancy values. Just look at Spain for example.
One could poke around on those sources: https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/1832
https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
My understanding is that the largest part of expenditures on health is generally at end of life, at least in developed countries, rather than spending a smaller amount on disease prevention earlier in life, which would be expected to have a larger effect on morbidity and mortality.
EEAGLI looks to be some sort of marketing/ PR firm. shrug
Yes this is a huge problem. Keeping people healthy instead of mitigating the obvious consequences of their unhealthy life
in case you've not gotten the memo, the entire world has been telling you for more than fifty years that under your shitty model you pay more for worse results.
It doesn't take a genius to see how retarded the way you're doing things is.
Retarded? You obviously don't understand that it is working perfectly and exactly as intended. Only, it is not a system to maintain the health of the average citizen, it is instead a system to siphon as much wealth from the regular people as possible towards the few corporate entities who managed to buy themselves the monopoly to exploit the poorer castes and drain any poor fuck who needs medical assistance dry for all they're worth.
The average American is prey, but there are enough reserves of these human resources to simply not care that it's either bankruptcy or death in the average case of a medical emergency.
Thanks USA, for fucking up so hard the rest of us can slack off on improvement because you're pulling the average so far out.
Cool, can the stupid meme "security is why the US has no free healthcare" finally die?
Only if you keep reminding people that Medicare for All would be cheaper than our current system.
The good news is that if you live in America, living part 80 is a terrible experience that nobody would want to do anyways.
Well, now I’d like to learn what the differences between the US and the Australian Healthcare System are!
Why is Australia so damn high up?
Turns out it seems the Australians have public health insurance for everyone - Medicare. And you have optional additional private insurance. Communism I guess. Surely wouldn’t workout for the US…
Turns out it seems the Australians have public health insurance for everyone - Medicare.
To follow from your comment , because Australia has a publicly funded health system, the government actively works to reduce preventable diseases because it reduces the load on the system.
So they have had:
A sunscreen campaign and skin cancer check initiatives since the '80s.
Anti-smoking campaigns (and high tobacco taxes) where resources are available to help quit.
Every citizen gets a free bowel cancer test mailed to them when they turn 50 to help find and treat cancer earlier.
Road safety laws are tight and helmet / seatbelt regulations are strict as it reduces hospital loads.
Vaccinations for a multitude of easily preventable diseases are given for free in childhood, particularly now for the virus that causes cervical cancer.
Those and a myriad of other public health initiatives all help Australians to live longer.
Coupled with the fact that the cost for the whole population is borne by an income tax of approximately 2% , it means that if you are poor or unemployed, you still have access to health services. That also means that small health issues among low income earners don't snowball until they are life threatening.
It has the knock on effect that people don't end up trapped in a job because it offers "good benefits and a low deductible" and concerns about pre existing conditions interfering with insurance and etc when changing jobs is generally moot.
Then throw in mandatory government regulated retirement funds that require all employers to put in 12+ percent of an employee's gross earnings into an employee's fund of their choosing for their retirement. That coupled with public health generally means the whole US style worker=slave arrangement can't exist.
Which means the US will get nothing like this as all that screams of nanny state overlords and death panels and moar taxes killing freedom and so on and so forth. Sorry guys.