The price of health care in the US rose at the same rate as inflation, up until 1968. Then, the price increases tilted upwards, and have not slowed down since. What happened in 1968? Government health insurance.
Not sure if I see it.
If it's a total expenditure graph, then surely it's obvious that expanding coverage would cost money?
per capita
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-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/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-...
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.
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.
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.
This is just wildly wrong. What you're looking at is the "advent of modern medicine". Prior to the middle of the 20th century, doctors were more or less limited to stitching people up after injury. Since then, we can treat... almost everything, honestly. But that's expensive, in particular in regimes like the US that want to provide all that stuff to everyone in the private markets that have the ability to pay for it.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with how the payments are handled. That's just silly.
Funny how it coincides with the very year the government started providing health insurance. Funny how the same thing happened when the government started providing education subsidies.
Funny how the inflation did not happen with medical procedures not covered by the government, such as Lasik eye surgery.
A longish, but good read about this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...
P.S. Antibiotics came out in WW2, not 1968.
Government provided health care was introduced in 1965 as part of Title XIX of the Social Security Act under President Lyndon B. Johnson, not in 1968.
I dunno what went wrong but something did.
Your final sentence is just the same point upthread: you want a simple coincidence[2] to make your argument.
[1] There is a ton of analysis and argument to do there too, but suffice it to say that "because medicare" is just as terrible an explanation.
[2] It's not even a coincidence! Desire for government-guaranteed health care came about precisely because of and simultaneous to the availability of late-life care that actually worked. No one wanted medicare in the 20's because there wasn't anything to pay for even if you had it. But they damn sure wanted their walkers and hip replacements in the 60's.
1. A wider range of healthcare issues can be cured or repressed due to advances in medicines. This directly lead to more doctor appointments. 2. People life expectancy increased, but older people need more healthcare. 3. Mental healthcare stigmatization went away (mostly), and therefore more doctor appointments. 4. Due to the higher demand in healthcare and the control over supply, the provider cost is higher than inflation.
The key is to reduce the kind of shoes available. Everyone shall wear the state issued formal shoes and when they need to engage in the required daily sporting activity, shall wear the state issued canvas shoes.
I, too, would very much like to see this play out in practice. But I don't think it'll ever actually happen in real life, because it would likely dramatically reduce the size of government (which politicians are loathe to do) and economically hurt wealthy landowners the most.
However, I am also tired of both sides claiming that labor unions, or social safety net, or some amount of government regulation are socialism and therefore either "see you like it, lets have some more" or "if government provides a health insurance scheme, it's Gulags right away". These things are governments or voluntary organizations of workers leveraging productivity of free market to accomplish some additional tasks deemed to remain unaddressed by market forces. Mind you, I am not a fan of lots of government, especially on central level. There are separate arguments about incentives for providers of aid to remain efficient and for recipients to be grateful and responsible. But let's have intelligent conversations about each thing rather than "Medicare is communism and border control is fascism".
There are also objective negative externalities like "if I didn't buy smoke from your factory, you have no right to blow it over my house", where regulation actually advances voluntary free market. Some movements like Georgism have interesting proposals to use mitigation of externalities to fund whatever government is needed while making market more efficient.