But taxes are much lower in the US. Is healthcare even cheaper in Sweden, if you figure in taxes?
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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 could be that richer countries simply have more money to spend on health care, so why wouldn't they spend it.
On the other hand 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.
In that example, a rich country could spend more money on health care and still have worse average health than poorer countries.
Not saying that is exactly what is going on, just that it makes sense to be careful with judging.
Another question perhaps is who pays taxes - another source I found said 2/3rds of voters in Sweden get their money from the state, either because they are government employees or recipients of welfare.
So an average tax rate might also be misleading, if many don't pay taxes at all.