boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net to Data Is Beautiful@lemmy.ml · 6 months agoThe market will for sure solve thisslrpnk.netimagemessage-square85fedilinkarrow-up1687arrow-down116cross-posted to: anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
arrow-up1671arrow-down1imageThe market will for sure solve thisslrpnk.netboredsquirrel@slrpnk.net to Data Is Beautiful@lemmy.ml · 6 months agomessage-square85fedilinkcross-posted to: anticorporate@lemmy.giftedmc.com
minus-squareSleekly@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up6·6 months agoI think the line might be historical data?
minus-squarerelevants@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up6·6 months agoBut… from when? Surely expenditure hasn’t gone up linearly with time
minus-squareunexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down1·edit-26 months agoYeah something is weird about this graph. Health expense in what timeframe? Monthly, yearly? If i had to guess, i would say this graph just shows the average yearly health expense of people that died at age X So people that spend more money on their health, live longer. If thats the whole message this is the most boring graph ever. If the US line is true, it shows that people there get much less value out of the money they spend on their health.
I think the line might be historical data?
But… from when? Surely expenditure hasn’t gone up linearly with time
Yeah something is weird about this graph.
Health expense in what timeframe? Monthly, yearly?
If i had to guess, i would say this graph just shows the average yearly health expense of people that died at age X
So people that spend more money on their health, live longer. If thats the whole message this is the most boring graph ever.
If the US line is true, it shows that people there get much less value out of the money they spend on their health.