←back to thread

Life expectancy rise in rich countries slows down: took 30 years to prove

(www.nature.com)
201 points andsoitis | 8 comments | 15 Oct 24 13:39 UTC | HN request time: 1.116s | source | bottom
Show context
defrost ◴[16 Oct 24 00:22 UTC] No.41854450[source]▶
For an interesting side piece:

    Curiously, however, for a system apparently stultified by the dead hand of government, Australia’s health system far outperforms the free market-based US healthcare system, which spends nearly twice as much per capita as Australia to deliver far worse outcomes — including Americans dying five years younger than us.
The shocking truth: Australia has a world-leading health system — because of governments

Source: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/10/16/pubic-private-healthcar...

Bypass: https://clearthis.page/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crikey.com.au%2F...

    Overall, we now have the fourth-highest life expectancy in the world.

   This is contrary to the narrative that pervades the media about our health system — one in which our “frontline” health workers heroically battle to overcome government neglect and inadequate spending, while the population is beset by various “epidemics” — obesity, alcohol, illicit drugs.

    In fact, Australian longevity is so remarkable that in August The Economist published a piece simply titled “Why do Australians live so long?”
Other references:

The Economist: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/08/23/why-do-a...

AU Gov Report: Advances in measuring healthcare productivity https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/measuring-healthcar...

replies(14): >>41854605 #>>41854613 #>>41854799 #>>41855053 #>>41855120 #>>41855218 #>>41855732 #>>41856242 #>>41856326 #>>41857738 #>>41857930 #>>41857960 #>>41858153 #>>41876405 #
alwayslikethis ◴[16 Oct 24 00:48 UTC] No.41854605[source]▶
> the free market-based US healthcare system

market, maybe, "free" market? I doubt it.

It's not a very free market when there is such a large power differential between the buyer and the seller. You can't exactly shop around for the ambulance or the hospital when you need it, nor can you realistically circumvent the artificially constrained supply [1] of doctors to get cheaper healthcare (unless you live next to the border).

When the alternative is a one-sided market like this, government becomes rather more appealing.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#R...

replies(7): >>41856252 #>>41856671 #>>41856804 #>>41857003 #>>41857443 #>>41858041 #>>41859036 #
1. xbmcuser ◴[16 Oct 24 07:58 UTC] No.41856671[source]▶
To me that is the funny thing today if you look at markets Chinese markets under it's communist system are actually freer than US. China is not interested any 1 company getting a monopoly and becoming more powerful than the government so they promote finance multiple companies resulting in a truer capitalist market than the US.
replies(4): >>41856689 #>>41857154 #>>41858322 #>>41861760 #
2. HPsquared ◴[16 Oct 24 08:00 UTC] No.41856689[source]▶
It's so ironic. Market competition is definitely intense over there.
3. corimaith ◴[16 Oct 24 09:27 UTC] No.41857154[source]▶
Not really. Chinese SOEs comprise around 60% of market capitalization and around 23% of GDP, far higher than USA or other developed economies.

While they do have a competitive market, the government very much does pick and choose winners and loosers here like Huawei, resulting in consolidation into a few large conglomerates like every other country. Their (software) tech scene certainly dosen't like more particularly "capitalist" than Big Tech, nor is the Fed pumping subsidies to Tesla like BYD, if anything they're sidelining Elon Musk.

4. lolinder ◴[16 Oct 24 12:31 UTC] No.41858322[source]▶
> Chinese markets under it's communist system are actually freer than US

Right up until the moment that the CCP decides to purge your entire sector, sure. I don't know if it counts as "free" if the government stands ready to nuke the sandbox they so generously let you play in.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/beijings-regulatory-crack...

replies(1): >>41861173 #
5. adam_arthur ◴[16 Oct 24 16:46 UTC] No.41861173[source]▶
You would expect market cap of the largest players to decline if the market becomes more competitive... which was China's primary goal with their recent crackdown.

They proactively forced interconnectivity and limited the ability for companies to make "walled-garden peudo-monopolies", as we have in the US with Apple and Google.

If the same happens here (through act of congress, or legal outcomes), you can expect their market caps to decline as well. A decline in market cap doesn't speak at all to whether it's beneficial to the industry or consumers

replies(1): >>41861362 #
6. lolinder ◴[16 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41861362{3}[source]▶
> They proactively forced interconnectivity and limited the ability for companies to make "walled-garden peudo-monopolies", as we have in the US with Apple and Google.

WeChat is the inspiration for the idea of the "everything app" that so many US companies want to create but have always failed to. Has it somehow been newly limited in its ability to control an absurd percentage of all Chinese internet-connected activity?

replies(1): >>41861581 #
7. adam_arthur ◴[16 Oct 24 17:30 UTC] No.41861581{4}[source]▶
This was and is part of their goal, yes.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Beijing-asks-Ten...

"Beijing asks Tencent to lower WeChat's mobile payment market share"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zennonkapron/2022/11/09/chinas-...

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/china-may-impos...

"China is planning to introduce a new mobile payment regulation aimed at reducing the market share of Tencent Holdings' WeChat app, similar to efforts made by the National Payments Corporation of India to curb Google Pay and Phone's growing dominance in the market"

China's methods are more authoritarian than are viable in the west. But the general premise of a competitive market being better for society than dominance by a small number of firms is supported well by history

8. Supermancho ◴[16 Oct 24 17:48 UTC] No.41861760[source]▶
> China is not interested any 1 company getting a monopoly and becoming more powerful than the government

Those are 2 different things.

Monopoly doesn't mean "more powerful than the government". I'm not sure what that means, since the CCP disappears or coerces anyone who might threaten the supremacy of the CCP (or Pooh Bear) in any way.

Capitalism results in a single winner, for many industries. CCP prefers kingmaking in various industries, because it's easier for the government to control a few players than a multitude. This isn't what "fair market" means, in context. It's modern communism. State owned companies that are directed by government, rather than direct investment or day to day management. China learned from Russia's failures, I would say. I would also concede it's less regulated, under a political lens.