Unsurprising News about Health-Care Costs

Obama, among his many lies, promised that Obamacare would “bend the cost curve,” that is, reduce or eliminate the surge in health-care costs. Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama was either stupid or lying. He’s not stupid (though not nearly as smart as he thinks he is), so it’s obvious that he was lying. (It was obvious to me from the get-go.)

Those few Americans who have been paying attention have known that Obama was lying because they’ve been following the surge in health-care costs. This is just the latest in a series of reports delivering the bad but unexpected news.

As the U.S. economy continues to flirt with recession, this morning’s “flash” Dross Domestic Product release for the second quarter indicates “close to zero” growth. Business investment has collapsed, leaving personal consumption expenditures to drive what little growth there is….

The figures for 2015 Q2 to 2016 Q2 show growth in spending on health services accounted for one quarter of GDP growth. At a growth rate of 5.3 percent, spending on health services grow more than twice as fast as the 2.1 percent growth in non-health services GDP. Growth in health spending accounted for almost one third of the growth in services spending and one quarter of the growth in personal consumption expenditure….
Although health services spending accounts for just 12 percent of GDP, these estimates continue to indicate it will grow faster than GDP. There is no slowdown in health services spending.
I’ll report later on the latest GDP estimates, but I will tell you that “close to zero” is real year-over-year growth of 1.2 percent. Just abysmal.

One comment

  1. I agree with the first way — paying out of pocket. The second way courts disaster because government would be in the business of guessing what kinds of care to provide for, which just doesn’t work, as Hayek pointed out in “The Pretence of Knowledge” (and other writings). Only markets can do that, which is why the first way is best. Rationing would only give the appearance of having costs under control. But, as in the case of Britain’s NHS, the real cost would be enormously high (long waiting times, scarcities that wouldn’t occur in a market-driven system, graft, etc.).

    Like

Comments are closed.