Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Well, the grouping of housing, fuel and utilities makes it a bit difficult to get a clear picture for comparison. Japan, for instance, has the largest percentage in this area, and Russia the lowest. Could that be mostly because Japan needs to import so much fuel/energy, while Russia doesn't?
Food costs in the US are supposedly the lowest, but does that take into account the multiple layers of subsidization that mask the true cost? Food costs in Russia are the highest, likely because of both their northern geographic location and production and transportation inefficiencies.
Our health costs are surely obscene due to the combination of poor eating habits, the medical delivery system, and the U.S. pharmaceutical ripoff. Compare our costs to Japan- are we really that much healthier because of all that expense? Of course not.
This chart presentation is a good start for discussion, but needs much more granularity to be really useful.
One note: the difference in life expectancy between the US and Russia may be ten years, but the difference between US and Japan (the only one at the top) is 5 years. Just one year of life expectancy is the difference between #19 and #34.
This is measuring the percentage of household income spent on each item, not how expensive each item is, although that of course factors into it. Poorer nations like Russia and India will spend a greater percentage of their income on food because they have less income per household to spend not because of food prices. I think where you see the greatest impact of price is in the U.S.'s expenditures on healthcare as our privatized system is more expensive and Japan with the fuel imports and tight real estate market.
The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.
Not biased at all, no sir.
(Not saying that is a bad mission, but it's certainly going to color what factors they use to measure "best")
"Bias", as used in this sort of comparison, is hardly a deplorable word. It simply suggests that a particular organization has a certain set of goals or interests. We may or may not agree with those, but what's the point of an organization without any?
"Bias", as used in this sort of comparison, is hardly a deplorable word. It simply suggests that a particular organization has a certain set of goals or interests. We may or may not agree with those, but what's the point of an organization without any?
It's deplorable in this context. An organization lobbying for some changes is going to put out studies/press releases/etc. that justify their point of view. That's what they get paid to do.
But that output is not news, and the press has some duty to not copy-paste it into an article, regardless of source. At least note the bias of the source.
If the article title read "Organization that thinks US health care should be more like rest of the world's health care says US health care is terrible and not as good as rest of the world's" then it would be accurate.
To be honest I hadn't read the original link, and I'm inclined to agree with your observations. If a news organization is going to run an organizational handout, it should be clearly identified as such.
>> An organization lobbying for some changes is going to put out studies/press releases/etc. that justify their point of view.
What does that even mean? You are concluding that the closing clause concerning audience and service delivery goals somehow affects or corrupts the access/quality/efficiency goal?
Can't tell what your automatic bias charges are founded on.
>> That's what they get paid to do.
? Huh? And what does that mean? Do you know anything about philanthropic social research outfits? Or the history of this one? Did you read their website?
In any case, prejudice may be the word you are looking for, not bias; but not clear what would be a supposedly more disinterested 'agenda' in your view.
MORE TO SPEND ! U.S. Household Wealth Set Record in Second Quarter Federal Reserve says household and nonprofit net worth climbed to $85.7 trillion By JOSH ZUMBRUN Updated Sept. 18, 2015 6:27 p.m. ET The Wall Street Jrnl
The net worth of U.S. households and nonprofit organizations—the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets minus all mortgages, debts and other liabilities—climbed by $695 billion to $85.7 trillion, according to a Federal Reserve report released Friday.
The report provides a snapshot of the robustness of American balance sheets before the turmoil that struck stock markets in August. Households had $14.3 trillion in debt in the second quarter, about two-thirds of which was mortgages. Total debt climbed by $133 billion in the period. Even though households’ assets have soared, their liabilities remain below where they were prior to the recession. Many households have been less willing to add debt; others had debts reduced through foreclosures.
The growth in overall wealth stands in contrast to a Census Bureau report this week showing the median household’s annual income declined slightly in 2014 after adjusting for inflation. The poverty rate held steady at 14.8%, a figure that has been little changed over the past 5 years while wealth has soared. The Fed’s wealth figures are aggregates that don’t account for the uneven distribution of assets. Overall wealth can climb dramatically, but if those assets are held by only a few households, many Americans may benefit little.
The Fed figures are also unadjusted for population growth or for inflation. Even after those adjustments, wealth is near record levels. For the second quarter in a row, households’ net worth was a record 4.8 times higher than the nation’s gross domestic product. From 1950 until the late 1990s, net worth had hovered between 3 and 4 times as high as GDP. The ratio has risen above 4 three times: at the height of the dot-com boom, during the 2004-2007 housing bubble and over the past 5 years. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-household-wealth-hit-record-in-second-quarter-1442593339
Russia leads the pack in spending on food, alcohol/tobacco, and clothing/footware.
U.S. leads in health care spending.
No one mentioned bias in the original chart. The chart represents household (private) expenditures, not national expenditures. As the Economist (where the chart was copied from) points out, this creates distortions in the health spending figures: "Predominantly private health care in America eats up over a fifth of each household’s budget, whereas the European Union, where public health care is common, only spends 4% on it."
Over the years, US health care spending has tended to run about 50/50 public/private. The most recent World Bank data (2013) shows it currently at 47/53. So health care in the US is "predominantly" private, but by just a small margin.
Why I find this 50/50 mix interesting is that if one takes the percent 17.1% of GDP that the US spends on health care (World Bank, again), and divides by 2 (to get the public expenditure), one sees that the public expenditure is already close to the total expenditures in the UK (9.1% of GDP).
Similar figures when measured in dollars per capita. US spends $9,146 per capita. Divide by 2, and that's about $4500 public expense per capita. UK spends about $3600 total per capita. (That's in US dollars, not pounds sterling.)
These figures suggest that an effective universal health care system can be had with no increase in public outlay but significantly reduced private (household) expenditures. Apparently without diminution of care as measured by outcomes.
See, e.g. this 2013 report (Of 17 Nations, US Is Dead Last). "The report was prepared by a panel of doctors, epidemiologists, demographers, and other researchers charged by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine to better understand Americans' comparative health."
Comments
Russia leads the pack in spending on food, alcohol/tobacco, and clothing/footware.
U.S. leads in health care spending.
Maybe we're healthier, but they're having a better time?
-
In fact, the U.S. does lead Russia by 10 years in average life expectancy (79 vs 69), but ranks only #34 among nations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Food costs in the US are supposedly the lowest, but does that take into account the multiple layers of subsidization that mask the true cost? Food costs in Russia are the highest, likely because of both their northern geographic location and production and transportation inefficiencies.
Our health costs are surely obscene due to the combination of poor eating habits, the medical delivery system, and the U.S. pharmaceutical ripoff. Compare our costs to Japan- are we really that much healthier because of all that expense? Of course not.
This chart presentation is a good start for discussion, but needs much more granularity to be really useful.
Per their mission statement: Not biased at all, no sir.
(Not saying that is a bad mission, but it's certainly going to color what factors they use to measure "best")
But that output is not news, and the press has some duty to not copy-paste it into an article, regardless of source. At least note the bias of the source.
If the article title read "Organization that thinks US health care should be more like rest of the world's health care says US health care is terrible and not as good as rest of the world's" then it would be accurate.
What does that even mean? You are concluding that the closing clause concerning audience and service delivery goals somehow affects or corrupts the access/quality/efficiency goal?
Can't tell what your automatic bias charges are founded on.
>> That's what they get paid to do.
? Huh? And what does that mean? Do you know anything about philanthropic social research outfits? Or the history of this one? Did you read their website?
In any case, prejudice may be the word you are looking for, not bias; but not clear what would be a supposedly more disinterested 'agenda' in your view.
U.S. Household Wealth Set Record in Second Quarter
Federal Reserve says household and nonprofit net worth climbed to $85.7 trillion
By JOSH ZUMBRUN
Updated Sept. 18, 2015 6:27 p.m. ET The Wall Street Jrnl
The net worth of U.S. households and nonprofit organizations—the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets minus all mortgages, debts and other liabilities—climbed by $695 billion to $85.7 trillion, according to a Federal Reserve report released Friday.
The report provides a snapshot of the robustness of American balance sheets before the turmoil that struck stock markets in August.
Households had $14.3 trillion in debt in the second quarter, about two-thirds of which was mortgages. Total debt climbed by $133 billion in the period. Even though households’ assets have soared, their liabilities remain below where they were prior to the recession. Many households have been less willing to add debt; others had debts reduced through foreclosures.
The growth in overall wealth stands in contrast to a Census Bureau report this week showing the median household’s annual income declined slightly in 2014 after adjusting for inflation. The poverty rate held steady at 14.8%, a figure that has been little changed over the past 5 years while wealth has soared.
The Fed’s wealth figures are aggregates that don’t account for the uneven distribution of assets. Overall wealth can climb dramatically, but if those assets are held by only a few households, many Americans may benefit little.
The Fed figures are also unadjusted for population growth or for inflation. Even after those adjustments, wealth is near record levels. For the second quarter in a row, households’ net worth was a record 4.8 times higher than the nation’s gross domestic product. From 1950 until the late 1990s, net worth had hovered between 3 and 4 times as high as GDP. The ratio has risen above 4 three times: at the height of the dot-com boom, during the 2004-2007 housing bubble and over the past 5 years.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-household-wealth-hit-record-in-second-quarter-1442593339
Thank you for the "MORE TO SPEND !" posting.
Catch
Over the years, US health care spending has tended to run about 50/50 public/private. The most recent World Bank data (2013) shows it currently at 47/53. So health care in the US is "predominantly" private, but by just a small margin.
Why I find this 50/50 mix interesting is that if one takes the percent 17.1% of GDP that the US spends on health care (World Bank, again), and divides by 2 (to get the public expenditure), one sees that the public expenditure is already close to the total expenditures in the UK (9.1% of GDP).
Similar figures when measured in dollars per capita. US spends $9,146 per capita. Divide by 2, and that's about $4500 public expense per capita. UK spends about $3600 total per capita. (That's in US dollars, not pounds sterling.)
These figures suggest that an effective universal health care system can be had with no increase in public outlay but significantly reduced private (household) expenditures. Apparently without diminution of care as measured by outcomes.
See, e.g. this 2013 report (Of 17 Nations, US Is Dead Last). "The report was prepared by a panel of doctors, epidemiologists, demographers, and other researchers charged by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine to better understand Americans' comparative health."