Fin/Inv

This chart from National Geographic combines several data sets which require a little bit of puzzling out, but which come together in one whopper of an illustration.

The parameters are:

Cost per capita - lefthand scale, and lifespan -- righthand scale, which together give a sloped line for each nation showing dollars per year of lifespan.

Thickness of each nation's line indicates number of doctor's visits per year.

Line colour indicates whether the nation has universal health coverage (blue) or not (red.) There are only two red lines -- Mexico and the USA.

Looking at these, you would hope to achieve a low lefthand starting point (low cost), a high righthand point (high longevity), and a thick line (lots of doctor visits.)

The USA line looks like it was drawn by someone who got the instructions backwards -- a very high lefthand starting point (huge cost), a mediocre righthand point (middlin' longevity), and a hairlike line thickness (scanty doctor visits, less than 4 per year.)

Who gets the healthcare bargain on this chart? Japan is the most striking, with the highest lifespan (almost 83 years), and a visit a month or more to the doctor, at a cost of about $2,600 per capita -- one-third the US cost.

Fifteen of the 21 nations shown achieve longer lifespans than the USA, at roughly half the US price.

Nuts, just nuts.

h/t to "fatster" in the comments over on Emptywheel.

rdan

Rebecca Wilder will begin writing as a Bear soon. Meanwhile, she maintains her own blog NEWSNECONOMICS. Here is an example of an Aug. 19,2009 post, which I am cross posting today, and a follow up post here. There were several questions raised, but I think it an interesting notion. I own an old Malibu and not a Porsche, and have watched my premiums and out of pocket health expenses skyrocket this decade. I knew the money went somewhere! Here is the cross post:

Today I plan to rant just a bit about consumption because I was reading Yves Smith’s article today, and she referred to “debt-fueled consumption” – the now pejorative phrase that just rolls off the tongue. She says:

“no where does the article [referenced WSJ article in her post on the consumption share] acknowledge that the consumption level was unsustainable and debt fueled.”
And this is where I get just slightly irked, because it seems to me that the phrase “debt-fueled consumption” strikes the following chord: every American household was loading up on home equity debt just to buy big ticket items like Hummers and large sofa sets with cup-holders galore from Jordan’s Furniture (a discount furniture shop in the Boston area – generically, every city has one)."

I am sure that Yves Smith knows this, but the debt-fueled consumption was more likely paying surging health care bills than buying cute kitchenettes.
(charts are fixed...update rdan)

Myth 1: The years of debt-fueled consumption went into goods spending, jumping the consumption share of GDP to an excess of 70%.


Update: large edition of graph here.
Reality: The goods share of total consumption has been falling quite dramatically, while the service component surged. Therefore, it is more likely that the debt fueled consumption was going predominantly into the service component (paying service bills).

In Q2 2009, 25% of service spending went to health care – outpatient services (physician, drugs, dentist) or hospital and nursing home services - and 29% of service spending went to housing and utilities – rent, water, electricity, and trash. As such, over 50% of service consumption is more likely to remain stable, even rise faster, with the Boomers out there.

And as for the speculation that workers are postponing retirement due the drop-off in wealth, and consumption will be meager into the medium term, I simply don’t buy it. If anything, the aging population is going to fuel recovery – no matter when they choose to retire. Service sector consumption growth – much of it based on health care consumption - will simply become a larger share of GDP growth (cutting out autos, perhaps), and pick up some of the slack.

And here’s another thing. Myth 2: durables consumption – i.e., autos and furniture – are important contributors to the initial stages of the recovery. It helps, but service consumption is the biggie.



Update: enlarged chart is here

The chart lists the average contribution each GDP component during the initial year of recovery spanning the 1950-2007 (nine recoveries in total).


Reality: The average growth accumulated during the initial stages of recovery (1-yr following the recession’s end) following the last nine recessions is a remarkable 6.43% (consensus forecast for growth in 2010 is currently 2.3%). Only 0.47% of that came from durable goods. A huge 1.67% of that stemmed from the service component of consumption (again, health care and housing).

And as long as service spending rebounds, so too will the economy – even without a big pickup in autos. Inventories are almost a foregone conclusion, the residential construction sector is bound to pick up – 500-600k units is simply unsustainable for a US population that is growing at roughly 1% a year, and growth rates on such a small base can be large.

And here’s another link to jobs that has not been incorporated to many forecasts – growth in jobs means new health care insurance, means added spending on health care.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Rebecca Wilder

Chart from follow up here.