U.S. health care spending is the highest on Earth. Here's why ⁠54%

By Clare McGrane⁠0% Teo Popescu⁠0%

2/26/2026, 11:14:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 20.7% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 468 faulty-reasoning hits from 304 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (10,174 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.50% of the article peer group.

U.S. health care spending is the highest on Earth. 
Here's why 
By: Clare McGrane and Teo Popescu 
3:15 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2026 
Most health care services in the U.S. cost at least twice what they do in other countries, and sometimes up to ten times as much. 
How does this show up on your hospital bill? 
To break it down, meet a pair of fictional twins. 
Emma and Sarah live on either side of the U.S.-Canada border. 
Below, we break down roughly how much it will cost for each of them to have a baby. 
Then we share what you can do about the (possibly giant) number at the bottom of your next medical bill. 
In British Columbia’s health care system, the cost of each service is set by the government and publicly available online. 
The centralized, state-run insurance program knows the average cost of each stage of pregnancy, delivery, and post-partum care. 
In the United States, we can estimate the total cost of having a baby using insurance data, but pricing depends on an individual hospital and insurance plan. 
The cost of a service is highly variable. 
If you’re facing a large medical bill, resources like the Marshall Allen Project can help make sure your bill is accurate and fair. 
Here are three tips generated by the Marshall Allen Project’s MAC chatbot: 
• Don’t pay your first bill – start by double-checking all the items on your bill to make sure you aren’t being double-charged or charged for a service you didn’t receive. 
• Compare prices using resources like Fair Health Consumer, Billy and Healthcare Bluebook. 
• If you spot errors or overpricing, contact your provider in writing to tell them. 
Ask for corrections, a cash price or financial assistance. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Clare McGrane: 2.7%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 1.8%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 1.5%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.9%Clare McGrane: 0.6%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.3%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 2.1%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Clare McGrane: 3.1%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 6.6%Clare McGrane: 2.0%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion6.6%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.5%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%Clare McGrane: 0.9%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 6.6%Clare McGrane: 1.3%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 4.0%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 1.9%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.3%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.4%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.4%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.9%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.1%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.8%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Clare McGrane: 7.6%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 3.0%Clare McGrane: 0.6%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.4%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Clare McGrane: 6.3%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 1.5%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.6%Clare McGrane: 2.8%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion7.6%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 1.0%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 2.7%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%Clare McGrane: 0.6%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof12.5%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.3%Clare McGrane: 4.4%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Clare McGrane: 2.7%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.6%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%Clare McGrane: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 3.9%Clare McGrane: 0.8%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 6.6%Clare McGrane: 1.2%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 18.1%Clare McGrane: 3.1%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination18.1%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clare McGrane: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Clare McGrane: 1.8%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.8%

304 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech236writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageMarshall Allen Project • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMarshall Allen Project • 13 words • 100.0% coverageMarshall Allen Project • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMarshall Allen Project • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Indoctrination+80.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Marshall Allen Project: 80.9%80.9%Unattributed Quote+45.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Marshall Allen Project: 45.6%45.6%Attempt to Sell a Product +9.4 ptsWriter: 9.7%Marshall Allen Project: 19.1%19.1%Biased Writer Voice-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Marshall Allen Project: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Marshall Allen Project: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.