That isn't to disagree with the causes given in the article, but after talking to those doctors it made me realize how complicated it is to get accurate comparisons between countries.
That isn't to disagree with the causes given in the article, but after talking to those doctors it made me realize how complicated it is to get accurate comparisons between countries.
On first glance, New Zealand (0.94%) and Australia (0.48%) top the OECD for rate of homelessness, as they include people living in temporary accomodation (sleeping on a couch, motels, etc.) or cars as homeless. Whereas Japan (with the 0.00%) only counts people sleeping rough). Comparing unemployment rates has similar issues.
Comparing these kinds of rates between countries on an absolute basis is largely useless. However, the change in these rates can give insight on how events (political, economic, etc) have changed the demographics and socioeconomic status of countries.
Politicians eventually gamed the metric so hard that it's almost worthless now, so economists today mostly use U-6.
Edit: apparently I'm wrong, Wikipedia states that 'life expectancy at birth (LEB) is the most commonly used measure'.
There are several reasons the US rate is so much higher than in other developed countries. The US does not have universal health care, which means large sections of the US population does not get adequate follow up during pregnancy.
If you look at health care for the poor in the US, it is generally geared towards emergency care. They will stitch you up if you are about to die. However it generally does not cover regular doctor visits and checkups. Hence in the US a lot of expensive effort goes into saving babies when born, when the problem could far more easily have been resolved early in the pregnancy with better checkups.
The US system is simply not very geared towards simple preventative care. Where other health care systems tend to focus on simple cheap system. American health care is overly focused on advance equipment, complicated procedures and basically anything which gives a lot of prestige or profits.
Problem is that such a health care system does not perform very well in the real world. You end up with very high costs and poor results.
E.g. a lot of health problems in the US is actually caused by over-treatment. That is the irony of the US system. Poor people who need help don't get it. People with expensive health care plans OTOH are subject to invasive procedures they don't need because it brings in profit. E.g. the US has overuse of surgery. So basically people who don't need surgery are cut open in the US. And that does take a toll on your health.
The opioid crisis killing Americans is a variation of this. Basically it is overmedication for the sake of profits. The health care system is actually a contributor to the bad health problems in the US.
It really should lead people to question for-profit health care, but it seems impossible to question anything about capitalism in the US. You speak to deaf ears.
Not so in the US. It would be surprising if that alone didn't account for a significant number of adverse outcomes.
Yes so in the US. That's literally what the person you replied to just told you: For pregnant women, children, and poor people, it's all fully covered.
It's really only the middle class that has it hard (i.e. expensive).
1: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/01/how-much-...
Also, Canada.
While there are many that don't have this kind of setup I don't know any country where care isn't free at the point of use. (Except for maybe your deductibles).
ProPublica, Vox and Texas Tribune did a great in depth article on this last year, "The Extraordinary Danger of Being Pregnant and Uninsured in Texas". Most of what they found is applicable across the country, Texas just happens to be particularly horrific.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-extraordinary-danger-...
edit: "And Medicaid pays well for that."
> In Texas, as in other parts of the U.S., providers are paid only about half as much for Medicaid patients as for privately insured ones.
> If you look at health care for the poor in the US, it is generally geared towards emergency care. They will stitch you up if you are about to die. However it generally does not cover regular doctor visits and checkups. Hence in the US a lot of expensive effort goes into saving babies when born, when the problem could far more easily have been resolved early in the pregnancy with better checkups.
That’s absolutely false. Medicaid covers preventative services: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/coverage-of-prevent...
CHIP also covers pregnant women and children under 19 and covers pre-natal checkups and delivery.
For non-hispanic black women, the death rate is a staggering 40.8 — that's over 13x higher than Finland!
Large parts of America are a third world country.
Asians, meanwhile, in the US have a maternal mortality rate of about 13, which would be 4x higher than Finland, but a life expectancy of over 86 years—several years longer than Japan or Korea, and 4 years longer than Finland. Indeed, the life expectancy of Hispanics in America is about the same as people in Finland.
It would be odd to see such disparities between maternal mortality on one hand and life expectancy on the other. Likewise it would be odd for Finland to be so much better than the UK. So I suspect there is more to the story than “large parts of America are a third world country.”