Are these claims about Japan’s health system true?












94














The series of claims in the image below has been getting shared around Facebook and are posted from the "Illuminati Exposed" page.



The claims are in the image but I've listed them here





  • 100% of Japanese people have health coverage, regardless of their income.

  • They spend half what the USA does.

  • They get to choose their own doctors, and see them twice as often as we do.

  • They have the world's longest life expectancy, and the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world.

  • 95% of Japan's healthcare is non-profit.

  • The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals.




enter image description here



For many readers of Skeptics, Illuminati Exposed may not seem credible, but many of its readers consider it credible.










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 12




    It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
    – jpmc26
    23 hours ago








  • 24




    Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
    – GordonM
    17 hours ago






  • 15




    It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
    – Semaphore
    16 hours ago








  • 5




    @Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
    – DJClayworth
    13 hours ago
















94














The series of claims in the image below has been getting shared around Facebook and are posted from the "Illuminati Exposed" page.



The claims are in the image but I've listed them here





  • 100% of Japanese people have health coverage, regardless of their income.

  • They spend half what the USA does.

  • They get to choose their own doctors, and see them twice as often as we do.

  • They have the world's longest life expectancy, and the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world.

  • 95% of Japan's healthcare is non-profit.

  • The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals.




enter image description here



For many readers of Skeptics, Illuminati Exposed may not seem credible, but many of its readers consider it credible.










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 12




    It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
    – jpmc26
    23 hours ago








  • 24




    Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
    – GordonM
    17 hours ago






  • 15




    It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
    – Semaphore
    16 hours ago








  • 5




    @Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
    – DJClayworth
    13 hours ago














94












94








94


13





The series of claims in the image below has been getting shared around Facebook and are posted from the "Illuminati Exposed" page.



The claims are in the image but I've listed them here





  • 100% of Japanese people have health coverage, regardless of their income.

  • They spend half what the USA does.

  • They get to choose their own doctors, and see them twice as often as we do.

  • They have the world's longest life expectancy, and the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world.

  • 95% of Japan's healthcare is non-profit.

  • The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals.




enter image description here



For many readers of Skeptics, Illuminati Exposed may not seem credible, but many of its readers consider it credible.










share|improve this question















The series of claims in the image below has been getting shared around Facebook and are posted from the "Illuminati Exposed" page.



The claims are in the image but I've listed them here





  • 100% of Japanese people have health coverage, regardless of their income.

  • They spend half what the USA does.

  • They get to choose their own doctors, and see them twice as often as we do.

  • They have the world's longest life expectancy, and the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world.

  • 95% of Japan's healthcare is non-profit.

  • The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals.




enter image description here



For many readers of Skeptics, Illuminati Exposed may not seem credible, but many of its readers consider it credible.







healthcare japan public-health






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 15 hours ago









doppelgreener

407514




407514










asked yesterday









user1605665

1,63421126




1,63421126








  • 9




    Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 12




    It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
    – jpmc26
    23 hours ago








  • 24




    Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
    – GordonM
    17 hours ago






  • 15




    It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
    – Semaphore
    16 hours ago








  • 5




    @Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
    – DJClayworth
    13 hours ago














  • 9




    Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 12




    It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
    – jpmc26
    23 hours ago








  • 24




    Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
    – GordonM
    17 hours ago






  • 15




    It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
    – Semaphore
    16 hours ago








  • 5




    @Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
    – DJClayworth
    13 hours ago








9




9




Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
– fredsbend
yesterday




Sources for claims don't have to be credible. They just have to have a wide reach. There needs to be evidence that a lot of people have heard and possibly believe the claim.
– fredsbend
yesterday




12




12




It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
– jpmc26
23 hours ago






It's worth noting that these metrics do not provide any real indication as to the actual quality of the healthcare system. Most are irrelevant to actual healthcare outcomes; the one that is actually affected by healthcare is also heavily influenced by factors other than the healthcare system. This is, at best, a severely insufficient picture for comparison.
– jpmc26
23 hours ago






24




24




Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
– GordonM
17 hours ago




Japan is far from the only country with a socialised healthcare system. Many European countries also have various flavours of the same basic concept.
– GordonM
17 hours ago




15




15




It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
– Semaphore
16 hours ago






It seems weird to single out Japan when most developed countries have universal healthcare. Isn't the real controversy over how to achieve universal healthcare rather than whether universal healthcare is preferable?
– Semaphore
16 hours ago






5




5




@Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
– DJClayworth
13 hours ago




@Semaphore The ad is aimed at Americans, and is intended to contrast these figures with the American ones. Almost identical ads could be made for Canadian, UK, and most European healthcare system, excepting the "worlds longest life expectancy".
– DJClayworth
13 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















136














The gist of it is true



Health Care System in Japan



"100% of Japanese people have their healthcare regardless of income"



This is partially true. All are mandated to have coverage, but that coverage is not 100%, and not all have the mandated coverage.




The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.



All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments.



Uninsured patients are responsible for paying 100% of their medical fees, but fees are waived for low-income households receiving a government subsidy. Fees are also waived for homeless people brought to the hospital by ambulance.




"They spend half what the USA does"



True. The amounts in the figure are the sums of both out-of-pocket and government contributions to healthcare expenditures.



enter image description here



"They get to choose their own doctor"



True




Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.




"They [...] see them twice as often as we do"



False... it is more than that.




The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.




"They have the worlds longest life expectancy"



True.



List of countries by life expectancy — which is based on WHO numbers — puts Japan at #1.



"They have [...] the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world"



According to the CIA World Factbook, true.



"95% of japans health care is non-profit"



This claim is contentious, since it relies on how you define "health care". According to the Wikipedia page...




Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.




The contention here is if we should count "clinics" as path of "health care", what profit rules apply to "clinics", and whether the government mandated health insurance covers visits to "clinics".



"The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals"



True, according to the Wikipedia page:




Medical fees are strictly regulated by the government to keep them affordable. Depending on the family income and the age of the insured, patients are responsible for paying 10%, 20%, or 30% of medical fees, with the government paying the remaining fee.5



Also, monthly thresholds are set for each household, again depending on income and age, and medical fees exceeding the threshold are waived or reimbursed by the government.







share|improve this answer



















  • 78




    @KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 19




    At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 34




    @KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
    – aroth
    yesterday






  • 31




    @KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 31




    @jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
    – Tim B
    15 hours ago



















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









136














The gist of it is true



Health Care System in Japan



"100% of Japanese people have their healthcare regardless of income"



This is partially true. All are mandated to have coverage, but that coverage is not 100%, and not all have the mandated coverage.




The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.



All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments.



Uninsured patients are responsible for paying 100% of their medical fees, but fees are waived for low-income households receiving a government subsidy. Fees are also waived for homeless people brought to the hospital by ambulance.




"They spend half what the USA does"



True. The amounts in the figure are the sums of both out-of-pocket and government contributions to healthcare expenditures.



enter image description here



"They get to choose their own doctor"



True




Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.




"They [...] see them twice as often as we do"



False... it is more than that.




The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.




"They have the worlds longest life expectancy"



True.



List of countries by life expectancy — which is based on WHO numbers — puts Japan at #1.



"They have [...] the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world"



According to the CIA World Factbook, true.



"95% of japans health care is non-profit"



This claim is contentious, since it relies on how you define "health care". According to the Wikipedia page...




Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.




The contention here is if we should count "clinics" as path of "health care", what profit rules apply to "clinics", and whether the government mandated health insurance covers visits to "clinics".



"The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals"



True, according to the Wikipedia page:




Medical fees are strictly regulated by the government to keep them affordable. Depending on the family income and the age of the insured, patients are responsible for paying 10%, 20%, or 30% of medical fees, with the government paying the remaining fee.5



Also, monthly thresholds are set for each household, again depending on income and age, and medical fees exceeding the threshold are waived or reimbursed by the government.







share|improve this answer



















  • 78




    @KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 19




    At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 34




    @KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
    – aroth
    yesterday






  • 31




    @KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 31




    @jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
    – Tim B
    15 hours ago
















136














The gist of it is true



Health Care System in Japan



"100% of Japanese people have their healthcare regardless of income"



This is partially true. All are mandated to have coverage, but that coverage is not 100%, and not all have the mandated coverage.




The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.



All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments.



Uninsured patients are responsible for paying 100% of their medical fees, but fees are waived for low-income households receiving a government subsidy. Fees are also waived for homeless people brought to the hospital by ambulance.




"They spend half what the USA does"



True. The amounts in the figure are the sums of both out-of-pocket and government contributions to healthcare expenditures.



enter image description here



"They get to choose their own doctor"



True




Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.




"They [...] see them twice as often as we do"



False... it is more than that.




The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.




"They have the worlds longest life expectancy"



True.



List of countries by life expectancy — which is based on WHO numbers — puts Japan at #1.



"They have [...] the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world"



According to the CIA World Factbook, true.



"95% of japans health care is non-profit"



This claim is contentious, since it relies on how you define "health care". According to the Wikipedia page...




Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.




The contention here is if we should count "clinics" as path of "health care", what profit rules apply to "clinics", and whether the government mandated health insurance covers visits to "clinics".



"The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals"



True, according to the Wikipedia page:




Medical fees are strictly regulated by the government to keep them affordable. Depending on the family income and the age of the insured, patients are responsible for paying 10%, 20%, or 30% of medical fees, with the government paying the remaining fee.5



Also, monthly thresholds are set for each household, again depending on income and age, and medical fees exceeding the threshold are waived or reimbursed by the government.







share|improve this answer



















  • 78




    @KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 19




    At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 34




    @KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
    – aroth
    yesterday






  • 31




    @KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 31




    @jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
    – Tim B
    15 hours ago














136












136








136






The gist of it is true



Health Care System in Japan



"100% of Japanese people have their healthcare regardless of income"



This is partially true. All are mandated to have coverage, but that coverage is not 100%, and not all have the mandated coverage.




The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.



All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments.



Uninsured patients are responsible for paying 100% of their medical fees, but fees are waived for low-income households receiving a government subsidy. Fees are also waived for homeless people brought to the hospital by ambulance.




"They spend half what the USA does"



True. The amounts in the figure are the sums of both out-of-pocket and government contributions to healthcare expenditures.



enter image description here



"They get to choose their own doctor"



True




Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.




"They [...] see them twice as often as we do"



False... it is more than that.




The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.




"They have the worlds longest life expectancy"



True.



List of countries by life expectancy — which is based on WHO numbers — puts Japan at #1.



"They have [...] the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world"



According to the CIA World Factbook, true.



"95% of japans health care is non-profit"



This claim is contentious, since it relies on how you define "health care". According to the Wikipedia page...




Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.




The contention here is if we should count "clinics" as path of "health care", what profit rules apply to "clinics", and whether the government mandated health insurance covers visits to "clinics".



"The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals"



True, according to the Wikipedia page:




Medical fees are strictly regulated by the government to keep them affordable. Depending on the family income and the age of the insured, patients are responsible for paying 10%, 20%, or 30% of medical fees, with the government paying the remaining fee.5



Also, monthly thresholds are set for each household, again depending on income and age, and medical fees exceeding the threshold are waived or reimbursed by the government.







share|improve this answer














The gist of it is true



Health Care System in Japan



"100% of Japanese people have their healthcare regardless of income"



This is partially true. All are mandated to have coverage, but that coverage is not 100%, and not all have the mandated coverage.




The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.



All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments.



Uninsured patients are responsible for paying 100% of their medical fees, but fees are waived for low-income households receiving a government subsidy. Fees are also waived for homeless people brought to the hospital by ambulance.




"They spend half what the USA does"



True. The amounts in the figure are the sums of both out-of-pocket and government contributions to healthcare expenditures.



enter image description here



"They get to choose their own doctor"



True




Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage.




"They [...] see them twice as often as we do"



False... it is more than that.




The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.




"They have the worlds longest life expectancy"



True.



List of countries by life expectancy — which is based on WHO numbers — puts Japan at #1.



"They have [...] the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world"



According to the CIA World Factbook, true.



"95% of japans health care is non-profit"



This claim is contentious, since it relies on how you define "health care". According to the Wikipedia page...




Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.




The contention here is if we should count "clinics" as path of "health care", what profit rules apply to "clinics", and whether the government mandated health insurance covers visits to "clinics".



"The Japanese government caps fees for medical services and pharmaceuticals"



True, according to the Wikipedia page:




Medical fees are strictly regulated by the government to keep them affordable. Depending on the family income and the age of the insured, patients are responsible for paying 10%, 20%, or 30% of medical fees, with the government paying the remaining fee.5



Also, monthly thresholds are set for each household, again depending on income and age, and medical fees exceeding the threshold are waived or reimbursed by the government.








share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 9 hours ago

























answered yesterday









MichaelK

8,53243942




8,53243942








  • 78




    @KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 19




    At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 34




    @KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
    – aroth
    yesterday






  • 31




    @KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 31




    @jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
    – Tim B
    15 hours ago














  • 78




    @KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 19




    At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
    – fredsbend
    yesterday






  • 34




    @KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
    – aroth
    yesterday






  • 31




    @KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
    – MichaelK
    yesterday






  • 31




    @jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
    – Tim B
    15 hours ago








78




78




@KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
– MichaelK
yesterday




@KodosJohnson Does not matter. The question was whether the claim was true.
– MichaelK
yesterday




19




19




At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
– fredsbend
yesterday




At the risk of parroting @kodos, I'd also warn against the false cause logical fallacy here. It does matter, Michael. Skeptics should rightly note that surprising facts seemingly related are not proof of causation.
– fredsbend
yesterday




34




34




@KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
– aroth
yesterday




@KodosJohnson Given that the graphic is framed as "universal healthcare isn't scary", I think the implied claim around life expectancy is less "universal healthcare increases life expectancy" and more "universal healthcare isn't a barrier to high life expectancy". Which, unless someone has proven a negative correlation between universal healthcare and life expectancy, is fair enough.
– aroth
yesterday




31




31




@KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
– MichaelK
yesterday




@KodosJohnson No, because the question is not whether there is a connection. The question is: are the claims true.
– MichaelK
yesterday




31




31




@jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
– Tim B
15 hours ago




@jwenting That's just flat wrong. Total expenditure per person including taxation is generally around half the US expenditure per person (of course some are higher, some lower) while covering the entire population and getting equivalent or better results. The numbers everywhere world wide just do not support the US system as being good for anyone except the people making profit from it.
– Tim B
15 hours ago



Popular posts from this blog

An IMO inspired problem

Management

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?