High US health care spending is quite well explained by its high material standard of living – Random Critical Analysis

When properly analyzed with better data and closer attention to detail, it becomes quite clear that US healthcare spending is not astronomically high for a country of its wealth.  Below I will layout these arguments in much greater detail and provide data, plots, and some statistical analysis to prove my point.

Using Actual Individual Consumption (AIC) we can explain the vast majority of healthcare expenditure differences between countries in any given year and the evolution of healthcare expenditure increases across more than 40 years!

Data plotted in R with the default loess regression line.

Total per capita health care spending increases as wealth increases because people actually demand more goods and services (volume) per capita and because it is relatively labor intensive sector that does not enjoy the productivity gains found in some other sectors of the economy, i.e., overall costs increase through both volume and price together (volume * price).

Now, to be clear, my position is not that we ought to be spending as much as we spend. My position is that the issues we face are very similar to the issues faced in Europe and other prosperous countries (and are generally similar to patterns many decades earlier). They are largely differences in degree, not kind. Our large apparent cost differences mostly originate from our significantly higher material standard of living. The long term increases found in the United States and other developed countries are generally a product of ever increasing material living conditions and varying levels of productivity in different economic sectors (healthcare being labor intensive and relatively high skilled at that).

There is much less low hanging fruit than people imagine, even less so at a political level when people can actually express their preferences at the voting booth and various other interest groups (providers, hospitals, etc) can influence the process.

Source: High US health care spending is quite well explained by its high material standard of living – Random Critical Analysis

If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump swapped genders, would they become less or more likeable? — Quartz

A restaging of the presidential debates upended expectations.

In this experiment, Donald Trump became a female candidate named Brenda King and Hillary Clinton became a male candidate named Jonathan Gordan. The actors who played King and Gordon not only replicated what the real-life candidates said during the debates, but also mimicked their posture, gestures, tone, and facial expressions.

when the performance was staged in the Provincetown Playhouse in New York in January, the audience reacted in unexpected ways.

Source: If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump swapped genders, would they become less or more likeable? — Quartz

Will building a powerful personal brand land you your dream job? Probably not, says Ilana Gershon — Quartz

Personal branding probably won’t help you get a job. But it is making us all more accepting of an increasingly dehumanizing job market.

When people are turned into brands, they become responsible to their brand—and to their bosses—all the time, everywhere.

Visualizing oneself as a brand also makes worker solidarity more difficult, Gershon says. Brands compete with each other; they don’t come together to demand higher pay, or decent health care, or reasonable hours. When people think of themselves as brands, they are speaking the language of reputation, appearance, and marketing. It’s hard to switch from that to a discussion of moral responsibility.

Source: Will building a powerful personal brand land you your dream job? Probably not, says Ilana Gershon — Quartz

We Need More ‘Useless’ Knowledge – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Do you like electricity, computers, TV, radio, smartphones, and GPS? How about your health and your extraordinary life span? Thank basic research.

Rather than attempting to demarcate the nebulous and artificial distinction between “useful” and “useless” knowledge, we may follow the example of the British chemist and Nobel laureate George Porter, who spoke instead of applied and “not-yet-applied” research.

Supporting applied and not-yet-applied research is not just smart but a social imperative. In order to enable and encourage the full cycle of scientific innovation, which feeds into society in numerous important ways, it is more productive to think of developing a solid portfolio of research in much the same way as we approach well-managed financial resources. Such a balanced portfolio would contain predictable and stable short-term investments, as well as long-term bets that are intrinsically more risky but can potentially earn off-the-scale rewards. A healthy and balanced ecosystem would support the full spectrum of scholarship, nourishing a complex web of interdependencies and feedback loops.

A broad-ranging dialogue between science and society is not only necessary for laying the foundation for future financial support. It is crucial for attracting young minds to join the research effort. Well-informed, science-literate citizens are better able to make responsible choices when confronted with difficult problems like climate change, nuclear power, vaccinations, and genetically modified foods. Similarly, scientists need the dialogue with society to act responsibly in developing potentially harmful technologies. And there is an even higher goal for the public engagement of science: Society fundamentally benefits from embracing the scientific culture of accuracy, truth seeking, critical questioning, healthy skepticism, respect for facts and uncertainties, and wonder at the richness of nature and the human spirit.

Source: We Need More ‘Useless’ Knowledge – The Chronicle of Higher Education

More: “The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge” in Harpers, issue 179, June/November 1939, by Abraham Flexner (1866-1959)