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

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...

> 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...

>>the free market-based US healthcare system

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

The consumer of healthcare is doubly removed from the price of healthcare. This is the opposite of a free market.

The patient did not pay the doctor, the insurance company does. In most cases the patient does not pay for insurance their employer does.

So the normal pricing forces of a free market are removed.

Then we need to talk about certificate of need laws which restrict the supply...

The free market aspect is the insurance marketplace.

If you’re poor, you’re fucked. If you’re old you’re ok. If you work for the government or certain companies, you have access to world class care. Everyone else is on a spectrum from high quality PPO to the shittiest Cigna plan.

There is nothing free about the health insurance market. It is regulated to hell to the point where a common complaint of actuaries I know is that they are not allowed to price your health risk.

^ When the grossly overweight 60yo smoker pays the same amount as a health-conscious 30yo, we have a problem.

> ^ When the grossly overweight 60yo smoker pays the same amount as a health-conscious 30yo, we have a problem.

It depends on what your goals are. The reasoning behind why the ACA ("Obamacare") is the way it is:

> Suppose you want to make health coverage available to everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. Most of the health economists I know would love to see single-payer — Medicare for all. Realistically, however, that’s too heavy a lift for the time being.

> For one thing, the insurance industry would not take kindly to being eliminated, and has a lot of clout. Also, a switch to single-payer would require a large tax increase. Most people would gain more from the elimination of insurance premiums than they would lose from the tax hike, but that would be a hard case to make in an election campaign.

> Beyond that, most Americans under 65 are covered by their employers, and are reasonably happy with that coverage. They would understandably be nervous about any proposal to replace that coverage with something else, no matter how truthfully you assured them that the replacement would be better.

> So the Affordable Care Act went for incrementalism — the so-called three-legged stool.

> It starts by requiring that insurers offer the same plans, at the same prices, to everyone, regardless of medical history. This deals with the problem of pre-existing conditions. On its own, however, this would lead to a “death spiral”: healthy people would wait until they got sick to sign up, so those who did sign up would be relatively unhealthy, driving up premiums, which would in turn drive out more healthy people, and so on.

> So insurance regulation has to be accompanied by the individual mandate, a requirement that people sign up for insurance, even if they’re currently healthy. And the insurance must meet minimum standards: Buying a cheap policy that barely covers anything is functionally the same as not buying insurance at all.

> But what if people can’t afford insurance? The third leg of the stool is subsidies that limit the cost for those with lower incomes. For those with the lowest incomes, the subsidy is 100 percent, and takes the form of an expansion of Medicaid.

* https://archive.is/HzS1G / https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/opinion/obamacare-repeal....

* https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2023/02/15/all-three-legs...

The goal of the ACA in the US was getting closer to universal coverage, and that means 'subsidizing' bad behaviour to a certain extant.

Certainly smokers and such should practice more (so-called) 'personal responsibility', but there are a lot of situation where the pre-existing condition is not smoking or other lifestyle choice, but something genetic / congenital. So unless we want to get into (social) Darwinism and leave those folks on the sidelines, the lifestyle folks can end up coming along for the ride when society decides to protect other non-lifestyle pre-existing people.