Most Americans are satisfied with their health care because most Americans have employer-provided insurance, and so are utterly ignorant of the costs involved. Unfortunately for these people, the skyrocketing costs will affect them, too, and soon - either through flattened or depressed wages, reduced or eliminated health coverage, or both. With insurance premiums rising 10 - 20% annually, it's only a matter of time.
And arguably the best way to control said costs is through introduction of competition and also giving people choice (with cost trade offs). Isn't the alternative government price controls? One of the arguments that Greg Mankiw makes is that at least with private institutions you have choice however limited, to move to another institution whereas this isn't the case with government.
I'm not sure that healthcare costs will necessarily increase over time - there are some pretty stunning developments in area of ambulatory care with dramatic savings for insurers (not to mention improvements in quality of care at the same time).
Spending on health care, which is a projected to be 17.6% of the U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009, has consistently
grown faster than the economy overall since the 1960s.
In 1970, U.S. health care spending was about $75
billion, or $356 per resident, and accounted for
7.2% of GDP.
Health care spending has risen about 2.4
percentage points faster than GDP since 1970.
Please tell us the source of your touching faith that this rather well-established long-term trend -- one which has already bankrupted millions -- will spontaneously reverse itself.
I should add as well that just because we're spending more on healthcare doesn't mean that it's getting more expensive. We may just be consuming more and better care. Here's a case for that argument:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/keeping-animial-spiri...
Comments
Most Americans are satisfied with their health care because most Americans have employer-provided insurance, and so are utterly ignorant of the costs involved. Unfortunately for these people, the skyrocketing costs will affect them, too, and soon - either through flattened or depressed wages, reduced or eliminated health coverage, or both. With insurance premiums rising 10 - 20% annually, it's only a matter of time.
And arguably the best way to control said costs is through introduction of competition and also giving people choice (with cost trade offs). Isn't the alternative government price controls? One of the arguments that Greg Mankiw makes is that at least with private institutions you have choice however limited, to move to another institution whereas this isn't the case with government.
I'm not sure that healthcare costs will necessarily increase over time - there are some pretty stunning developments in area of ambulatory care with dramatic savings for insurers (not to mention improvements in quality of care at the same time).
I'm not sure that healthcare costs will necessarily increase over time
From the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, via the Kaiser Family Foundation:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692_02.pdf
Spending on health care, which is a projected to be 17.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009, has consistently grown faster than the economy overall since the 1960s.
In 1970, U.S. health care spending was about $75 billion, or $356 per resident, and accounted for 7.2% of GDP.
Health care spending has risen about 2.4 percentage points faster than GDP since 1970.
Please tell us the source of your touching faith that this rather well-established long-term trend -- one which has already bankrupted millions -- will spontaneously reverse itself.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/che.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Hc09_Be...
I should add as well that just because we're spending more on healthcare doesn't mean that it's getting more expensive. We may just be consuming more and better care. Here's a case for that argument: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/keeping-animial-spiri...