Compensation has kept pace with productivity.
Source: http://i.imgur.com/5mOQARo.png
Source: http://i.imgur.com/5mOQARo.png
Source: https://imgur.com/u6ScCfi
We are getting older, and more broken.
We are currently 'shifting' what we value in life.
If we spend more on doctors, it may be that they provide more value to us.
If we'd rather invest in new surgical procedures over some new kind of social network, well, that's what we want, apparently.
Of course with healthcare it's always more complicated, but it's rational that we spend more on health if that's what society values.
The only place wages are growing (healthcare compensation) is being siphoned away by parasitic for-profit health insurance companies.
Do you use your car insurance to pay for a new air freshener? Do you use your home owner's insurance to get a new throw rug? Of course not.
Yet, we are using insurance to pay for things like birth control and penis pills. We don't use our car insurance to cover a tune-up or inspection, but we expect our health insurance to cover our check-ups.
Stop mandating that the insurance companies cover everything and pay for regular health care out of pocket.
Or, you know, go with single payer - which is what I'd suggest. But, expecting insurance to cover regular care just means it is one more avenue where an intermediary is profiting without adding real benefit. Insurance is for when things go wrong, not for regular care.
Really, though, I'd strongly suggest single payer.
No.
I completely disagree.
The stats on 'bad outcomes' relate to 'life expectancy' etc. - but those are only indirectly related to healthcare.
If you have cancer - and could be anywhere in the world - it would be under an American health-insurer.
America has the #1 healtchare system in the world for those who are covered. For those who are not - it's terrible, obviously. And, it's crazy expensive as you pointed out.
But 'direct outcomes' are not bad - they're good.
Due to all the 'inner city violence' + Medics coming back from the war - American emergency rooms have become goddam miracle centres.
The number of people dying from gun wounds has dropped dramatically due to the amazing ability of the American healthcare system (perverse reasoning, but hey).
It's a crazy situation, but it's not irrational that 'cutting edge healthcare' is 2x expensive as 'socialized healthcare' that we receive here in Canada. 10% improvement (for those covered) at 2x the cost seems about right actually.
Take total US GDP in 1950 and divide by total compensation (wages plus benefits) for all private-sector workers. About 50% of GDP went to workers, and 50% went to owners of capital.
That 50% ratio stayed constant until about 1975.
The ratio has steadily deteriorated until today, where workers now keep 43% and capital keeps 57%. That 14% is a massive, tectonic shift and shows no signs of reversing.
Why wouldn't those workers capture the benefits of the robots in the same ratio that workers capture the benefits of other things they produce?
This is what communism talks about with "seizing the means of production" - without capital, the workers cannot exercise their design & production skills, and thus the wealth they generate is split between them and the capital investor.
Workers compete with themselves to design breakthrough machines or improve their work productivity in order to generate more wealth; capital investors naturally get exponential gains by continuing to reinvest in a growing economy.
In that sense, there should be a steady increase in the capital/worker ratio of GDP ever since the industrial revolution.