Mortgage rates / interest etc

[Jacob]

Statista shows that the USA spent 8.9% of GDP on health care in 1980. Whilst the UK was 5.1%.

The US spent 75% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK in 1980.

In 2019 (expenditure jumped in 2020 for some reason) the USA spent 17.6% and the UK spent 9.9% of GDP on health care.

The US spent 77% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK in 2019.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184968/us-health-expenditure-as-percent-of-gdp-since-1960/
https://www.statista.com/statistics...ture-as-a-share-of-gdp-in-the-united-kingdom/
Life expectancy in the USA is 79.1 in the UK it is 81.8 years.

The USA pays 75% more to live nearly three fewer years.

"It is important to state that Americans do not pay more because they have a higher health care utilization, but mainly because of higher prices."

Yep it's well known that USA public (i.e. free, not private) health expenditure is much more expensive and less cost effective than UK's .
We are going the USA way here, lower state funding, hence longer waiting lists and a slowly declining quality of health service as more is given over to private industry.
USA system is really complicated Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

 

[johna.clements]

Johna - are you trying to avoid why care may not be free and university may not be free?

We have a problem in my opinion, in the US. People like to go to get health care for things they caused themselves (obesity, etc, poor sleep habits, whatever it may be). The health care system doesn't mind seeing those patients if they come through the door and pay, or the government pays on their behalf.

The quality of care here is better than the quality of care there.

The average health of the patients outside of the healthcare system isn't.

You worked hard to avoid the actual topic here, and your statistic implying that health care in the UK is the cause for the difference in life expectancy is errant. For example, california, new york and hawaii all have higher life expectancies than the UK.

Both New York and California have higher obesity rates, and in combination, substantially vs. the UK, but higher life expectancies.

Hawaii has a very low obesity rate for the states, slightly lower than the UK, but a life expectancy 1.5 years longer.

You could answer the original implied question, though - health care spending on a nominal basis due to the difference in GDP share is up somewhere around 300 billion. Should you just "get it from the rich"? (anyone who is of higher means than the person being surveyed?)

University stats are a little less easy to quantify. googler says 43 billion pounds of spending on higher education (public funds). What share of that covers the 2 1/2 times as large crowd as 1980, anyone know?

Let's say that in the end, the additional funds needed would be another 50 billion pounds for "Free for all" university.

Who is the gatekeeper given the enrollment has already more than doubled and quite a lot of the enrollees probably do not improve society by going?

We are now up to total "should be free" costs increasing to somewhere around 10% of the whole GDP. Not as a share of the GDP, that's just the increase.

Maybe some of the cost should be laid on the people creating those costs.

maybe when someone puts a political poster up claiming things have been taken away, they should include some information about what's more likely - the nominal government amount paid on behalf of citizens for both health care and university subsidies is probably higher than it's ever been. The takers are just getting too good at taking and not good enough at making.

I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.

 

[D_W]

I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.

Both are some of each here. The picture posted talked about subsidized buses, no cost health care, no tuition university.

The issue with socialized benefits isn't that they're not efficient. It's that if there isn't a gate determining who gets them and how much, they don't age well as utilization goes up.

We have the opposite problem in the US - the system is more open and can expand quickly. If people decide they want to blow 17% of the GDP on health care, it will happily comply.

I'm not pleased with this, but because it is regional, it's not like there is an NHS-like system that I could participate in, or I would do it. Sticking to my story on the life expectancy thing - (past a point, I think it has no effect on life expectancy, or at least not a significant one, and that point is most socialized systems - we pay for convenience and customer preening here). The real issue in the US is disregard for doing healthy things in some regions. I mentioned the life expectancies in california and hawaii and NY.

if I looked for alabama or mississippi, I'm sure I could find life expectancies 3 or 5 years lower than the UK. There is a lot of health care in those places, but the lifestyle cancels it out and then some, and the folks who live there wear it like a badge. "we'll show you by living unhealthy and showing you we can do whatever we want".

 

[Jacob]

I don't know anyone who thinks that health care or education is free. It is paid with tax or you pay direct.

Those in USA who can afford the best get the best, but 35 million americans get worse than UK New Reports Show Record 35 Million People Enrolled in Coverage Related to the Affordable Care Act, with Historic 21 Million People Enrolled in Medicaid Expansion Coverage

I found this out myself when I had a quad tendon rupture. It's a big issue especially with sports and out door activities and delay in treatment beyond 24 hours gets critical to a good recovery. There was a US web page chat group. Lots of them were moaning about the problems of getting treated, then about getting secondary treatment to counter the delays and inadequacies first time around, bills, insurances, poor recoveries, permanent disability etc etc
OTOH I was picked up by ambulance in heavy snow, driven off in bad weather to nearest accessible hospital, operated on within 24 hours, fitted with splints, crutches, medicines, other aids supplied and returned home two days later. 6 months of follow up with adjustments to splints etc etc.
As good as you can get and money, insurance, not mentioned once.
My only complaints were that they kept waking me up to see if I was OK and offering me cups of tea (free). The breakfast (free) was a bit cr-ap.

 

[johna.clements]

In the USA the state with the best life expectancy is Hawaii at 82.3 years Democrat
2nd California 81.7 Democrat
3rd New York 81.4 Democrat
4th Minnesota 80.9 Democrat
5th Connecticut 80.9 Democrat

46th Arkansas 76.0 Republican
47th Kentucky 75.6 Republican
48th Alabama 75.5 Republican
49th Mississippi 74.9 Republican
50th West Virginia 74.8 Republican

 

[John Brown]

In the USA the state with the best life expectancy is Hawaii at 82.3 years Democrat
2nd California 81.7 Democrat
3rd New York 81.4 Democrat
4th Minnesota 80.9 Democrat
5th Connecticut 80.9 Democrat

46th Arkansas 76.0 Republican
47th Kentucky 75.6 Republican
48th Alabama 75.5 Republican
49th Mississippi 74.9 Republican
50th West Virginia 74.8 Republican

That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.

 

[johna.clements]

That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.

I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.

I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.

 

[D_W]

That's interesting, as Hawaii is apparently the most Democrat state in the USA as well.

hawaii has a very low obesity rate. California is a very high income state and so is NY.

life expectancy parallels with income, so NYC and the burbs with sky high income will correlate with longer living (and generally people who are wealthier got there because they make better choices than people who are not).

I don't know enough about Hawaii to know what the income level is, but the obesity rate is lower there than a lot of countries, and for the US, we know that's not normal.

Too, they have some native populations with very high obesity rates (hawaii does), so the remainder of the population must be ultra fit compared to the US.

California and NY are "plenty fat", though i believe NY probably thanks to NYC and people wanting to be seen by each other, less fat.

Urbanized population probably also correlates highly with utilization of medicine.

If you took regions (especially suburban) that are highly republican, you'd find they live just as long. When you toss in rural and especially rural lower income areas, you're going to find lower life expectancy and especially more people who boast about things like "I haven't seen a doctor in 40 years".

 

[D_W]

I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.

I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.

They're urbanized - the health care isn't different, but there may be (are) more local options. You're more or less comparing two areas, One is a financial and corporate center, and the other is the corporate center of tech.

I doubt either has anything to do with party affiliation.

It may be a surprise, but low income low or no cost health care is pretty much universal in the US. Getting people to use it isn't always that easy, though.

We have a term in rural areas (if I said I grew up rural compared to the south, that would be false, but I grew up rural compared to city suburban). "mailbox liberals".

A lot of people who call themselves conservative are mailbox liberals: They talk like republicans and go to the mailbox hoping for a check from the government.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Criticism without objectivity is easy - it just puts personal preconceptions ahead of reality.

Public spending as a % of GDP increased from ~37% during the Thatcher era to ~46% at the end of the Blair/brown period. Tory austerity reduced this to ~40% pre-covid but now stands at ~45%.

Claims that public spending has been slashed is nonsense - expectations may have increased, services become more poorly managed, or ££bn more wasted, or needs changed etc. Objectivity desperately needed before solutions can be resolved. Knee jerk higher taxes are not a solution.

The NHS needs to be subjected to similar scrutiny - healthcare spending has increased from~5% of GDP to ~8% pre covid. Have expectations increased at a faster rate than actual spend, or is the problem management or admin, or integration of social and health care. Writing out bigger cheques delays a solution - it cannot fix the problem if we don't know what the problem is

Comparisons of healthcare across Europe suggest that (a) the performance of the UK is about average (better in some specialisms, worse in others), (b) the UK spends average amounts of GDP on healthcare, and (c) the funding method makes little difference to performance - NHS (free at the point of us, social insurance, contribution to individual healthcare costs etc.

So what is the problem - poor management, lack of integration of social care, increasing expectations, greater diversity of treatments etc.

Similar observations and questions can be raised on other key areas of public spending - education, defence, law and order etc.

Or is the real problem that the aggregate of expectations is simply unaffordable. We are simply not productive enough to make all aspirations a reality.

Far greater objectivity is needed and very clear priorities agreed. Simply complaining about how inequitable or unfair it is actually sets resolution back as it gives preference to those who can argue their case most seductively, not those addressing critical needs.

 

[IBmatty]

I was not expecting it to be so one or two sided.

I am aware that Democrat states are generally richer which helps with health. I would assume that the Democrats have programs that boost general health but that is just a guess.

It’s more complex than that. Demographics for instance as the top states have higher hispanic/asian/pacific island populations who in the US have significantly higher life expectancy than whites and african-american.

 

[Jacob]

Criticism without objectivity is easy - it just puts personal preconceptions ahead of reality.

Public spending as a % of GDP increased from ~37% during the Thatcher era to ~46% at the end of the Blair/brown period. Tory austerity reduced this to ~40% pre-covid but now stands at ~45%.

Claims that public spending has been slashed is nonsense - expectations may have increased, services become more poorly managed, or ££bn more wasted, or needs changed etc. Objectivity desperately needed before solutions can be resolved. Knee jerk higher taxes are not a solution.

The NHS needs to be subjected to similar scrutiny - healthcare spending has increased from~5% of GDP to ~8% pre covid. Have expectations increased at a faster rate than actual spend, or is the problem management or admin, or integration of social and health care. Writing out bigger cheques delays a solution - it cannot fix the problem if we don't know what the problem is

Comparisons of healthcare across Europe suggest that (a) the performance of the UK is about average (better in some specialisms, worse in others), (b) the UK spends average amounts of GDP on healthcare, and (c) the funding method makes little difference to performance - NHS (free at the point of us, social insurance, contribution to individual healthcare costs etc.

So what is the problem - poor management, lack of integration of social care, increasing expectations, greater diversity of treatments etc.

Similar observations and questions can be raised on other key areas of public spending - education, defence, law and order etc.

Or is the real problem that the aggregate of expectations is simply unaffordable. We are simply not productive enough to make all aspirations a reality.

Far greater objectivity is needed and very clear priorities agreed. Simply complaining about how inequitable or unfair it is actually sets resolution back as it gives preference to those who can argue their case most seductively, not those addressing critical needs.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/07/ftse-100-executive-pay-rose-23-per-cent-4m-2022

 

[RobinBHM]

Comparisons of healthcare across Europe suggest that (a) the performance of the UK is about average (better in some specialisms, worse in others), (b) the UK spends average amounts of GDP on healthcare, and (c) the funding method makes little difference to performance - NHS (free at the point of us, social insurance, contribution to individual healthcare costs etc

NHS is quite good value in terms of spend per capita and services offered.

however compared to the best European health service systems, like Germany, France, Italy, NHS funding is well behind.

Germany has way better metrics than NHS, much higher nurses, doctors, beds per capita etc.

 

[johna.clements]

They're urbanized - the health care isn't different, but there may be (are) more local options. You're more or less comparing two areas, One is a financial and corporate center, and the other is the corporate center of tech.

I doubt either has anything to do with party affiliation.

It may be a surprise, but low income low or no cost health care is pretty much universal in the US. Getting people to use it isn't always that easy, though.

We have a term in rural areas (if I said I grew up rural compared to the south, that would be false, but I grew up rural compared to city suburban). "mailbox liberals".

A lot of people who call themselves conservative are mailbox liberals: They talk like republicans and go to the mailbox hoping for a check from the government.

Lets look at West Virginia the US state with the lowest life expectancy.

All counties voted for Trump in 2020 so this is by who much the majority was ignoring others.

1st Pendleton County male life expectancy 77.7 years 54% majority
2nd Monongalia 77.2 - 1% majority for Trump
3rd Tucker 76.2 - 50%
4th Grant 76.1 - 77%
5th Jefferson 75.6 11%
.....
.....
51st Wyoming 70.3 years male life expectancy 72%
52nd Boone 70.1 - 53% majority for Trump
53rd Logan 69.5 - 63%
54th Mingo 68.5 - 71.3%
55th McDowell 67.0 - 59%

Not as clear cut as nationally but it looks like there is some correlation between voting Democrat and living longer.

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/west-virginiahttps://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/west-virginia-life-expectancy-by-county-male
Monongalia county which nearly went for Biden has a University and some pharmaceutical type industry.

The low life expectancy counties are in the south of the state, I assume more up in the Appalachians but I have not checked.


Generally more educated people are more left leaning. They will leave rural area and head for places with better paying jobs. The rural area will be left with less educated people who are generally more right leaning. People also get more right leaning as they age, so areas with an older population will be more to the right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...cation-gap-explains-american-politics/575113/
The health care that is provided is not the only influence on health. Lifestyle and social measures are likely to be a bigger factor. It is striking that the people who were against financially neutral measures against covid, such as masks, tended to be from the right.

 

[D_W]

I'm not sure why you think there's some tie in to WV being republican and life expectancy. It's a poor state with many areas very poor and a lot of people with issues above and beyond obesity.

If you could imagine, it's an area where you can live and not get any television signal or cell phone signal. There is at least one large generic pharma company there, though, and parts of the states with universities have robust health care, as do outlying areas. Getting people to live in a way that will make it make a difference in really rural areas is a challenge, though, and the heritage of the state before switching to natural gas was coal mining.

One of the things that's always baffled me as an independent is why people think it's "smarter" to be liberal, or why people who are poor think it's smarter to be republican. the lack of independent thinking among academics, and the peer pressure to be liberal is just as strong as the pressure to be conservative in some rural areas. It's dumb on both sides.

I doubt there's much correlation between masks and excess mortality. We had the opportunity at the beginning to educate people on wearing maks that would fit well enough and filter well enough to make a difference, but the CDC lied to people about it and then set everyone about with cloth masks.

It was stupidity, and I'm sure it cost lives. I followed the rules and didn't make a stink just like most people did, but it was a farce. sit in a room with droplets in the air with a cloth mask and you're getting covid. I had N95 masks for any times they were really needed and opted to stay out of places where droplets would be suspended while people who don't understand much (i guess?) stood in stale air "I have a mask and we're six feet apart!".

When I hear people talk about who did and didn't wear masks, it reminds me of california, who has the same excess mortality as florida over the last three years. In PA where people are fatter and half of the state is anti mask, our excess mortality is lower.

 

[D_W]

It’s more complex than that. Demographics for instance as the top states have higher hispanic/asian/pacific island populations who in the US have significantly higher life expectancy than whites and african-american.

Hispanic populations generally have higher obesity and lower life expectancy. Caucasian life expectancy is higher than average.

I'm sure the asian population has better mortality data than caucasians, though - some of my relatives are Chinese. they pat my belly (at 210 pounds) and say to me "I'm worried about you". it's far less acceptable to be overweight or unhealthy for any reason other than working hard.

 

[johna.clements]

I'm not sure why you think there's some tie in to WV being republican and life expectancy. It's a poor state with many areas very poor and a lot of people with issues above and beyond obesity.

If you could imagine, it's an area where you can live and not get any television signal or cell phone signal. There is at least one large generic pharma company there, though, and parts of the states with universities have robust health care, as do outlying areas. Getting people to live in a way that will make it make a difference in really rural areas is a challenge, though, and the heritage of the state before switching to natural gas was coal mining.

One of the things that's always baffled me as an independent is why people think it's "smarter" to be liberal, or why people who are poor think it's smarter to be republican. the lack of independent thinking among academics, and the peer pressure to be liberal is just as strong as the pressure to be conservative in some rural areas. It's dumb on both sides.

I doubt there's much correlation between masks and excess mortality. We had the opportunity at the beginning to educate people on wearing maks that would fit well enough and filter well enough to make a difference, but the CDC lied to people about it and then set everyone about with cloth masks.

It was stupidity, and I'm sure it cost lives. I followed the rules and didn't make a stink just like most people did, but it was a farce. sit in a room with droplets in the air with a cloth mask and you're getting covid. I had N95 masks for any times they were really needed and opted to stay out of places where droplets would be suspended while people who don't understand much (i guess?) stood in stale air "I have a mask and we're six feet apart!".

When I hear people talk about who did and didn't wear masks, it reminds me of california, who has the same excess mortality as florida over the last three years. In PA where people are fatter and half of the state is anti mask, our excess mortality is lower.

West Virginia has the second lowest average (median) income in the USA. $49.202 and $67,340 respectively.

Here are the average (median) income figures added

1st Pendleton County male life expectancy 77.7 years 54% majority $41K 28th
2nd Monongalia 77.2 - 1% majority for Trump $50k 5th
3rd Tucker 76.2 - 50% $46k 17th
4th Grant 76.1 - 77% $41k 29th
5th Jefferson 75.6 11% $77k 1st
.....
.....
51st Wyoming 70.3 years male life expectancy 72% $40k 35th
52nd Boone 70.1 - 53% majority for Trump $39k 44th
53rd Logan 69.5 - 63% $38k 47th
54th Mingo 68.5 - 71.3% $31k 54th
55th McDowell 67.0 - 59% $27k 55th

The counties with a higher income have a higher life expectancy. Higher income, in a county, also appears correspond to not voting for Trump.

As I note people with higher education will tend to leave poor areas and move to richer areas where they can make more money. I did not think you would dispute this.

I take it that you accept that many educated people are more liberal even though you are baffled by it.

When the more educated people leave an area they take with them the potential to make the place richer.

The Republican and low life expectancy correlation is most likely a bit of chicken and egg.

 

[D_W]

I think you're confusing my saying that i think it's dippy with me saying that there isn't a cohort. There are two groups that are very liberal (both of my parents were teachers) - academia, and teachers. How liberal the rest of society is away from that, I'm not sure.

I've worked for 22+ years now in a business environment and have noticed more politically liberal people who are like the photographic negative of the mailbox liberals than I'd known would exist. Actually, coming from a rural area, I hadn't met too many of these types. 40% of the population where I grew up was liberal, but it tended to be government employees, college employees and teachers.

The photographic negative part is that I'm convinced the well-to-do types who call themselves liberal and behave nothing like it at all do so because it's a social norm to call themselves a liberal. Especially if they live in one of the well to do urban neighborhoods instead of the suburbs. This may be difficult to understand (the greedy liberals) if you haven't worked in an office environment.

In the US, we generally don't talk politics at work. I definitely don't as I tend to irritate both sides and can't help myself when someone offers an opinion that seems like an easy target.

I could be wrong about the well to do urban liberal types, too - they may literally think one set of rules applies to everyone else with their ideals, and then justification is good for them. Same as the mailbox liberal (for anyone not reading the prior posts, the mailbox liberal is a republican happy to collect a government check from their mailbox).

 

[IBmatty]

Hispanic populations generally have higher obesity and lower life expectancy. Caucasian life expectancy is higher than average.

I'm sure the asian population has better mortality data than caucasians, though - some of my relatives are Chinese. they pat my belly (at 210 pounds) and say to me "I'm worried about you". it's far less acceptable to be overweight or unhealthy for any reason other than working hard.

According to the CDC, hispanics have had the best life expectancy since the 1970’s though it’s a well known paradox due to the propensity to on average carry more weight.

 

[Chris70]

Whoa, guys. Haven't you gone a bit off topic, now talking about obesity in the good ol' US of A. I thought this was about "Mortgage Rates/Interest etc", or is this the &cetera?