Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Can you flesh that argument out more?

The argument is that the observation "worse outcomes to major health events" does not justify the conclusion "better life expectancy is not due to health care system", because a health care system can be better at reducing the probability of major health events, while having worse outcomes from the health events that still do occur, and still have the net effect of those differences bet better life expectancies when all other factors are equal.

> Is there a statistic we can find to validate it?

I'm not arguing that Cuba's health care system is the reason for the better life expectancy numbers, I'm pointing out that the premise from which you drew the conclusion that it was not does not lead to that conclusion. (It supports the conclusion that Cuba's health care system's ability to respond to major health events is not the reason, which is a much narrower conclusion.)

I'd personally be surprised if the health care system alone was the explanation (whether through preventive care or otherwise.)




I followed what your argument was, but would be interested in seeing you pursue it. From what I can tell, there isn't much evidence that an advantage in preventative care makes up for the gap between Cuba and (say) Spain on major health event outcomes. For example: you're roughly as likely to die of CVD in the US as in Cuba, with CVD being seemingly a pretty good proxy for preventative care overall.

If it's not preventative care that Cuba does particularly well, what is the thing it does well? There would need to be something, right? One of the major tasks of the health care system is to prevent people with CVD, stroke, and cancer from dying. Cuba doesn't do a particularly good job of that. I'm sure there are other things a health care system needs to do well. What are they? Then we can go find out how well Cuba does them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: