That may be so, but doesn't necessarily imply that health care is more expensive in the US. It's possible that in the US they simply spend more money on useless things, or do more screenings with better technology, for example.

Many things can go wrong with interpreting such statistics, see also my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21760725

Afaik, some of the best (and also most expensive) medical procedures are only available in the US.

> It's possible that in the US they simply spend more money on useless things, or do more screenings with better technology

These are both components to saying that the health care system is more expensive in the US.

> a rich country could spend more money on health care and still have worse average health than poorer countries

Yes. I think that multiple people on this thread would argue that this is the case with the US.

> many health outcomes may also depend on wealth - for example over-consumption leading to obesity, which might affect health more than spending on health care can compensate.

This implies that differences in social services and urban design have an impact on healthcare spending. This is relevant to /u/sykick's statements "the cost of healthcare, housing, food, and transportation should be taken into account." and "I'd rather be poor in Sweden than in the U.S."

"> It's possible that in the US they simply spend more money on useless things, or do more screenings with better technology

These are both components to saying that the health care system is more expensive in the US."

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If the service is better, the higher price is justified. Presumably you can always choose to not use the better technology to save money.

"This implies that differences in social services and urban design have an impact on healthcare spending."

How does it imply that? More social services would stop people from overeating? Do you have a citation for that?

In Sweden, you pay taxes for healthcare and everyone receives healthcare.

In the USA, you pay taxes for healthcare, but only the old and the poor receive that tax funded healthcare. So the average taxpayer has to buy their own health insurance in addition.

The linked chart also shows a clear correlation with Purchasing Power Parity, which also should be accounted for.

> only the old and the poor

Also government employees, and those under the care of the VA.

> Purchasing Power Parity, which also should be accounted for.

Yes, I agree.

To illustrate with a simplified example:

Imagine nation A has median wage of $20k and nation B has median wage of $40k. Also imagine that their income distribution is the same. Then, if healthcare costs in nation B are twice as high, healthcare is equally as affordable.

" So the average taxpayer has to buy their own health insurance in addition."

How the money is collected is pretty irrelevant (indirectly via taxes or directly by the insurance company or physician). What matters is the overall cost.

It is relevant due to the complexity and uncertainty imposed. When I lived in the US, I didn't have a way of learning how much an interaction with a medical system would cost me. Now that I live in the UK, I do.

Don't forget profit, and the incentive for insurance companies to care less about what they pay and probably prefer higher prices.

Why would insurance companies prefer higher prices?

Their profit is capped at a percentage of payouts. Pay more keep more profits (after raising rates).