Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stevekemp2 2539 days ago
Sure, but there are obvious cases which turn these averages into really different personal-stories.

One case is the obvious cost of having a child in America, even with insurance some people pay thousands of dollars.

2 comments

"The american system is bad for the poor or unlucky" is a very different argument than "the american system is bad for the average person."

The difference in median disposable income between the U.S. and the U.K. is stunning: almost $17,000. Even after you factor in things like student loan debt (averaging $220/month for the minority of people who have student loans at all) and out-of-pocket healthcare expenses and premiums (a few thousand a year on average, versus maybe a thousand or so in other OECD countries), the median American household is coming out way ahead.

Child mortality rates in the US 5.9 per 1000, In the UK 3.8. [1]

> Two-thirds of people who file for bankruptcy cite medical issues as a key contributor to their financial downfall. [2]

United Kingdom suicide rate per 100,000 7.5, United States 13.8 [3]

United States Murder Rate per 100,000 5.35, United Kingdom 1.2 [4]

More to life than money I guess, also your $17,000 is accounting for income distribution, at first glance that looks good but while our income distribution is pretty bad, the US is positively Dickensian.

No jingoism intended here, we get a lot wrong and other countries straight up kick our arse (Spain's infant mortality rate is half ours at 2.0 for example amongst major European countries) but that just means we should be looking to improve.

[1] https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/infant-mortality-rates.htm

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most...

[3] https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/suicide-rates.htm#indicator...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

On infant mortality statistics, at least part of the difference is that the US reports that figure rigorously, while other countries do not necessarily do so: https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/infant-mortality-dece....

As to income distribution: that’s the OECD’s estimate of the median household. So it’s not being skewed up by super-rich households.

As to bankruptcies, less than 0.5% of households file for bankruptcy in a given year.

As to homicide or suicide rate: again, that affects a tiny minority. Meanwhile, the much higher income affects 60-70% of the whole population.

The U.K. is a society where you’ve lowered the median to lift up the floor. That’s one way to do it. And I don’t even disagree with you that the US should do more in that regard. But if you support an expanded welfare state (and I do), it’s dishonest to sell that policy to people by pretending that the average person is going to be better off. Unless they place a very high value on security (avoiding low probability outcomes like medical bankruptcy) over material comfort, they’re going to be worse off.

Guess I hit a nerve.
The point is that "some people" is not "average". If we are going to talk about the problems with health care in the US exaggerating the problems is counterproductive.
Does that mean poverty is not a problem worth addressing, because on average we’re a reasonably wealthy country?

Is inequality not a problem, because on average we all have the same opportunities?