4 ms·

Where are you getting this information? I’m unable to verify it.

by escapedmoose 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago
google "historical US healthcare costs"
- mhh__ 3y ago
  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL Not sure if I see it. If it's a total expenditure graph, then surely it's obvious that expanding coverage would cost money?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Sigh. What can I say? Google it, and at the VERY TOP of the results page is a graph that is captioned "Per capita out-of-pocket expenditures 1970-2021". To the right of it is another graph entitled "Total national health expenditures, US $ per capita, 1970-2021". per capita
    - mhh__ 3y ago
      Surely you realize that Google ranks the results differently for different people?
- runarberg 3y ago
  Alright: First is a graph that shows healthcare costs increase steadily slightly above inflate rate over time from 1970 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20Billions,%201970-2021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... Seconds are a bunch of numbers in a CSV indicating that there is nothing special about 1968, healthcare costs rose just like any other years. 1965 is in fact a pivotal years, costs rose more then previous years when medicare and medicate were rolled out (more on that later). But also noting that between 1960 and 1965 prices still rose above inflation, just not as much as in the late 1960s, while still much more than in the 1990s. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta... Third is an article explaining the trends (using same number as in nr. 2) in terms of historic events. > Between 1961 and 1965, health care spending increased by an average of 8.9% a year. That's because health insurance expanded. As it covered more people, the demand for health care services rose. By 1965, households paid out-of-pocket for 44% of all medical expenses. Health insurance paid for 24%. > From 1966 to 1973, health care spending rose by an average of 11.9% a year. Medicare and Medicaid covered more people and allowed them to use more health care services. Medicaid allowed senior citizens to move into expensive nursing home facilities. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-... So when you say stuff like: “The price of health care in the US rose at the same rate as inflation, up until 1968.” first check if your data and your dates are correct, but also consider nuances. Like, what does it mean thate prices go up (explained in source nr. 2) Does it mean that individually your average out of pocket costs are higher, does larger funds go from government to the health care industry? Are hospital operations more expensive? etc. But also note that if nobody gets health care, health care costs are 0 USD, while treating more people will make costs go up as more people are getting more technologically challenging and expensive treatments (explained in source nr. 3). Taking costs going up when more people get healthcare to automatically mean that socialism is bad, that is kind of a simplistic take to say the least.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > slightly Pardon me, but LOL. While there are other factors, none of them can account for such a vast per-capita increase. My health care premiums tripled since Obamacare started, even though I cut back the coverage quite a bit.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      You are free to draw your own conclusions from the sources, but I simply did what you advised, using the exact same search phrase (albeit on duck duck go) and these were the results and these are my conclusions. If you wanted me to see the per-capita increase in health care costs, and compare pre-Obamacare with post-Obamacare, perhaps you should have advised a different tactic—although, that would have bee a bit odd given your original point. But if you want to argue Obamacare now, you are out of luck, you found somebody who is not a fan, and somebody who is personally out of health-insurance, somebody who lives in a community where lots of my neighbors are out of health-insurance, because Obamacare is simply too expensive and covers too little for people to want to opt for it. So you would be arguing with somebody that agrees with you. Perhaps a system which pays medical costs directly and universally insures all residents might actually be better than a system which subsidizes private health insurance companies.

Where are you getting this information? I’m unable to verify it.

WalterBright 3y ago

google "historical US healthcare costs"

mhh__ 3y ago
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIMEDSL Not sure if I see it. If it's a total expenditure graph, then surely it's obvious that expanding coverage would cost money?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Sigh. What can I say? Google it, and at the VERY TOP of the results page is a graph that is captioned "Per capita out-of-pocket expenditures 1970-2021". To the right of it is another graph entitled "Total national health expenditures, US $ per capita, 1970-2021". per capita
  - mhh__ 3y ago
    Surely you realize that Google ranks the results differently for different people?
runarberg 3y ago
Alright: First is a graph that shows healthcare costs increase steadily slightly above inflate rate over time from 1970 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20US%20$%20Billions,%201970-2021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe... Seconds are a bunch of numbers in a CSV indicating that there is nothing special about 1968, healthcare costs rose just like any other years. 1965 is in fact a pivotal years, costs rose more then previous years when medicare and medicate were rolled out (more on that later). But also noting that between 1960 and 1965 prices still rose above inflation, just not as much as in the late 1960s, while still much more than in the 1990s. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta... Third is an article explaining the trends (using same number as in nr. 2) in terms of historic events. > Between 1961 and 1965, health care spending increased by an average of 8.9% a year. That's because health insurance expanded. As it covered more people, the demand for health care services rose. By 1965, households paid out-of-pocket for 44% of all medical expenses. Health insurance paid for 24%. > From 1966 to 1973, health care spending rose by an average of 11.9% a year. Medicare and Medicaid covered more people and allowed them to use more health care services. Medicaid allowed senior citizens to move into expensive nursing home facilities. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878 https://www.thebalancemoney.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-... So when you say stuff like: “The price of health care in the US rose at the same rate as inflation, up until 1968.” first check if your data and your dates are correct, but also consider nuances. Like, what does it mean thate prices go up (explained in source nr. 2) Does it mean that individually your average out of pocket costs are higher, does larger funds go from government to the health care industry? Are hospital operations more expensive? etc. But also note that if nobody gets health care, health care costs are 0 USD, while treating more people will make costs go up as more people are getting more technologically challenging and expensive treatments (explained in source nr. 3). Taking costs going up when more people get healthcare to automatically mean that socialism is bad, that is kind of a simplistic take to say the least.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > slightly Pardon me, but LOL. While there are other factors, none of them can account for such a vast per-capita increase. My health care premiums tripled since Obamacare started, even though I cut back the coverage quite a bit.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    You are free to draw your own conclusions from the sources, but I simply did what you advised, using the exact same search phrase (albeit on duck duck go) and these were the results and these are my conclusions. If you wanted me to see the per-capita increase in health care costs, and compare pre-Obamacare with post-Obamacare, perhaps you should have advised a different tactic—although, that would have bee a bit odd given your original point. But if you want to argue Obamacare now, you are out of luck, you found somebody who is not a fan, and somebody who is personally out of health-insurance, somebody who lives in a community where lots of my neighbors are out of health-insurance, because Obamacare is simply too expensive and covers too little for people to want to opt for it. So you would be arguing with somebody that agrees with you. Perhaps a system which pays medical costs directly and universally insures all residents might actually be better than a system which subsidizes private health insurance companies.