On innovation and free-riding, not sure what the best measure is but to me the larger point isn’t necessarily where a company happens to be located, but that they’re able to sell profitably to the largest economy in the world. As someone else mentioned, the big Swiss pharma companies are not supporting their research with sales to the tiny and price-controlled Swiss market.

And I know life expectancy wasn’t ‘your’ issue, but crude comparisons on measures like these can obscure the fact that the US is more heterogeneous than most other developed countries. E.g. I’ve heard the unfavorable infant mortality comparisons are entirely due to pockets of poverty in the southern states. I’m puzzled why amid all the data I never see comparisons made between, say, Canada and just northern states (which would seem to automatically control for many other potential factors).

Ken: My link may be partisan, but is stronger than your link showing that nearly 100% of medical innovation is from the USA.

As the Council for American Medical Innovation says: “Unfortunately, America is losing its competitive edge to countries that have made innovation a priority. Singapore, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and South Korea now outrank the U.S.”

So to clarify, you didn’t link to anything that gives you know actual numbers, but a policy platform dedicated to lining their own pockets using tax payer money (larger federal dollars stuffed into their pockets), increased monopoly power (strengthening “intellectual” property laws), failed policies (more funding more PreK-12 “education” system), and a LOT of empty platitudes? Ha!

You posted a chart with health-care expenditures vs. life expectancies. If I ignore the life expectancy axis, there is only expenditures left. That sounds like you only care about how much the US spends, not on what the results are. I’m not sure that is what you intended, but I don’t know how else to interpret your comments.

“This tells us nothing about the relative costs of USA healthcare”

Relative to the past, Americans spend more and they live longer. You implied the inverse.

“And most of these USA will score very well on”

Incorrect.

“Do you seriously believe that USA health care is not overpriced”

How do you measure overpriced? The USA spends more and gets more. Other countries spend less and get less.

“As health care expenditures have increased in the US, so has results, even by the crude measure of life expectancy.”
This tells us nothing about the relative costs of USA healthcare.

“there are many inputs to the life expectancy measure, only some of which are health-care related”. And most of these USA will score very well on, such as wealth etc.

Do you seriously believe that USA health care is not overpriced compared to other countries?

There is a line between being facetious and being silly, and I am pretty sure you crossed it. As health care expenditures have increased in the US, so has results, even by the crude measure of life expectancy.

There is a paucity of data that makes it difficult to measure health-care outcomes. The chart showing the different countries’ life expectancies does not tell us that much about their respective health-care systems, since there are many inputs to the life expectancy measure, only some of which are health-care related. What data we do have does suggest the US system outperforms the others. For instance, Japanese men living in California live longer than Japanese men living in Japan.

>>”I believe that you (and possibly those you are quoting)”

By the way, I’m quoting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “AHRQ,” the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

>>”I believe that you (and possibly those you are quoting) are confusing costs with expenditures.”

Why?