Untitled attachment

@HeavenlyPossum

If that were true, you’d expect to see the rest of the OECD countries spending closer to US levels and getting even higher life expectancy gains than they already have, unless you assume they’ve maxed out what money can buy.

Not sure why OECD would be particularly specied here, they all have wildly different cultures and lifestyles. There is nothing about OECD that would suggest they have similar lifestyle characteristics as the USA. So any expectation that they would be similar seems like an absurd comparison. Chile for example doesnt have the unhealthy lifestyle of Americans.

So no this would be a very unreasonable expectation.

You haven’t done anything but assume there are lifestyle differences between the US and the rest of the OECD that causally produce lower life expectancy.

Thats how science works, the burden of proof is not on me, its on the author of the chart. Posting bad science that fails to prove X does not put the buden on me to prove “not X”, all I have to do is show why it was bad science (lack of normalization), the onus is on the author .

Earlier, you told me you hadn’t made any assumptions, but you’re assuming both different lifestyles and a causal relationship that you haven’t demonstrated either.

No the other way around, the data is assuming the scenario I described is not possible by the act of not doing the correct analysis and normalizing for it. The onus is again ont he author to prove their assumptions, not on me to disprove their non-fact based assumptions (non-normalized data).

This chart is also what we’d expect to see if the US healthcare industry existed to extract revenue from Americans rather than to provide health outcomes.

MAYBE, since it was done using bad-science we cant know that.. nor until they normalize properly and do good science.

@malwaretech @GossiTheDog @juergen_hubert

Public

Notices where this attachment appears