What happened in 1968? LBJ's Great Society massive efforts at free medical care started.
The same thing happened with college tuition. Government attempts to reduce its costs resulted in greatly expanded costliness.
The most expensive things in the world are government provided "free" stuff.
Of course people still pay. It's not provided by magic fairies.
However, it's not automatically inefficient just because it's publicly funded.
It's inefficient because nobody is as careful spending other peoples' money as they are with their own money.
See the chart at https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm; we pay more in taxes than any other OECD nation does total for healthcare, and then pile individual spending on top of that.
You asserted "Just because it's 'free' doesn't mean you aren't paying plenty for it", but the places where it's "free" are paying less. You're highlighting issues specific to the American system in an apparent attempt to argue against European-style systems, which is... odd.
"Free market healthcare" is just the right's version of "communism would work if it weren't for human nature".
> Of the members of the general population who reported they had “pains in the heart,” 25 percent did not see a physician (Andersen and Anderson, 1967).
Sounds awesome.
The article makes a pretty good case for your 1968 date being an attribution error - that years before it, the rise of things like transplants, ICUs, demographic changes, etc. were already messing up costs.
Looks pretty steady to me: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20110919....
1960 onwards: https://aneconomicsense.org/2019/11/23/the-high-and-rising-c...
if you want to reduce costs:
1. stop giving the AMA a monopoly. ban state and local regulations on how much healthcare can be built and where.
2. require posting prices and give it teeth.
3. make it easier to import cheap generics from other countries.
4. enable nurse practitioners to do more stuff.
5. enable more clinics with clear prices for stuff like this one where i can go their site and see it's $6215 for a bilteral knee arthroscopy: https://surgerycenterok.com/?procedure_category=knee#jump because very few of the healthcare $ are spent on emergency procedures where ppl don't have time to choose and information is how you make markets efficient.
You'll hear that in both directions, to the point where the CDC has a page for Americans seeking care abroad, typically due to exorbitant costs here. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/medical-tourism
> i'd rather a system where i can get better by paying more than a system where i'm at the mercy of some bureaucrat or waiting list.
There are very few countries in which this is the case; you can opt for private healthcare in Europe, Australia, etc. if you like. There's simply also a specific, reasonable level of care available to all. (The idea that the US lacks bureaucrats and waiting lists is, incidentally, funny to most folks who've tried to see a specialist on short order, or had insurance deny coverage for something.)
private care over there just isn't the same. and yeah i dealt with insurance and specialists before and it sucks but at least money makes a difference and more money makes more difference and it's not just "lol get on the list and stfu"
"Medical tourists from the United States commonly travel to Mexico and Canada"
Canada isn't an OECD nation?
> at least money makes a difference
"The rich get healthcare before needier poor people who've been waiting longer" seems like a negative to me, on a societal level.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/most-efficie...
We certainly pay for healthcare in the UK through taxation. It's pretty efficient. Hospitals aren't nice and shiny and medical people get paid a lot less though. I'll take that trade off myself anyday.