We are all aware that the US spends a lot on healthcare. The article we are discussing provides a good explanation of why.
The fact that health care and health outcomes are minimally correlated is well known; see RAND, Oregon, and lots of non-RCT studies that generally fail to find much correlation (e.g. this one, which made the rounds recently https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/25135... ). I'm not sure what the relevance of that is to this article, however.
AFAICT, the article explains it only in the statistical sense of the word, not the plain-English sense, so I think you're missing the point of the comment.
Comments
We are all aware that the US spends a lot on healthcare. The article we are discussing provides a good explanation of why.
The fact that health care and health outcomes are minimally correlated is well known; see RAND, Oregon, and lots of non-RCT studies that generally fail to find much correlation (e.g. this one, which made the rounds recently https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/25135... ). I'm not sure what the relevance of that is to this article, however.
AFAICT, the article explains it only in the statistical sense of the word, not the plain-English sense, so I think you're missing the point of the comment.
The plain english explanation is that Americans consume a lot of everything relative to GDP/capita, and health care is not an exception to this.