Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

The thing about healthcare is that the value of healthcare has risen drastically. It would be very easy to earn enough money to pay for 1950 or 1970 style healthcare.

But we want 2013 healthcare, which is far more labor intensive. I have a herniated disk. In 1950, a doctor would spend an hour telling me I'd have to live with back pain for the rest of my life. In 2012 many doctor hours were spent on my MRIs and laparoscopic surgery. Net result is that my deadlift is now about 285 - nothing impressive, but not possible in 1951.

So the short answer is that including healthcare, we work more because we want more. Many of the things we want more of require more labor in 2013 than in 1950.

View on HN

If I break my leg and need nothing more than some X-rays, a cast, and some opioids, do you think the hospital will hand me a bill equal to the inflation-adjusted 1970 cost of treating a broken leg?

According to this: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

$1 in 1970 is worth $6.02 in 2013.

I would say it would be difficult to get the same quality as you had in 1970 as health regulations have increased so it would be rather difficult to get an estimate if you could actually get the 1970 cost.

> I would say it would be difficult to get the same quality as you had in 1970 as health regulations have increased

Which "health regulations" have increased the "quality" of treating a basic non-compound leg fracture since 1970? And which "health regulations" does the US alone have that uniquely increase its costs?

Is it justifiable to assume that the cost of health care has been rising to approximately match the quality and technological improvement worldwide?

Or is it more likely that the cost has sky-rocketed out of proportion with the quality of health care (in this country or in the world) with no good reason?

In the US I'd have probably paid $20-30k for my surgery (I had it done in India for 85k rs) and it has drastically increased my quality of life. I like boxing, lifting weights, biking, sexual positions other than girl on top, and walking without pain - any one of these is worth at least $30k to me.

The ultimate question; are you willing to give up medicine invented since 1950 in return for paying 1950's prices? I'm not.

I don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive. Why can't high quality medicinal practices be coupled with lower costs if there's not reason for the costs to be higher? That was my question. Just accepting high costs and arguing the opposite extreme isn't going to help anyone or drive down prices.

There is a reason for costs to be higher - more human labor was expended on my treatment than on my hypothetical non-treatment. Combine that fact with Baumol's cost disease, and you discover that there is a good reason for things to cost more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com