Over here in Canada healthcare spending has been rising faster than general inflation more or less continuously since the 1960s. Seems to be generally true of many wealthy countries. More tech and therapies. And an ageing population. And probably other factors.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Health_care_cost_r...
The same is true for other sectors that struggle with automation like education.
https://a16z.com/solving-baumols-cost-disease-in-healthcare/
It is patient (and relatives) expectations.
It is knowing that any perceived issue could result in litigation.
It is that management may well have never 'worked the floor' so have no insight in to what happens.
There may well just not be the time to do all the tasks that someone else had decided needed to be done.
Before then, costs tracked inflation.
Health care costs that are not provided "free" by the government have fallen, such as lasik eye surgery.
See: https://www.worktheworld.co.uk/blog/highest-paying-medical-j...
Drugs were far cheaper before the 1962 FDA Amendments, after that was a massive increase in costs. See "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman.
https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-...
See also:
How American Health Care Killed My Father https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...
Monopolized markets are almost always evidence of regulatory failure.
Advocating for "healthy capitalism," is advocating for a system where government sets boundaries and steps in to preserve competition. That places it firmly within the spectrum of government-regulated options, not outside or apart from them.
It's tempting to imagine ideal or the worst versions of each option and then claim, "what I want is none of these." Instead, we should look at whether our preferred scenario is actually possible within the real-world range of choices. In this case, "healthy capitalism" is only possible when government is both the referee and the enforcer, so it's a version of the government option, not a separate path.
So, yes, we are worse off because of that, because we wind up with far fewer effective drugs.
A proper solution is for the patient, a legal consenting adult, to sign a piece of paper that says he understands that the FDA has not verified the drug to be effective.
Also is that too high? I know a guy in his early 40s still finishing his 2nd radiology fellowship (4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, 5 years radiology, 1-2 years each fellowship = cost of his 20s/30s) to get a job...
I find HN comments on healthcare compensation when it comes up funny because on the other hand compensation expectations in the tech gold mine here are justified. E.g. I take home less in CDN dollars than an L3 SE at google without benefits. I'm happy with what I do/get but there is a mismatch in rationalizing high compensation, markedly more years of university and training, and from my point providing a societal benefit.
It is profits. When someone is sick, or dying, we really need to make a huge profit, before it is too late. Porsches, Lamborghinis, Malibu houses cost money. You can't just sit there and let others do it, instead of you.
However, as it happens I just spent the last weekend accompanying my wife as she was in a hospital. There was actually quite a bit that happened, especially once or l out of the ER and admitted, that I would have felt totally fine if a robot had done it. Half of what the nurses did were things like bringing puke bags, picking up a full puke bags, bringing water, paging the doctor again who wouldn't show up for another 4 hours, explaining how to order food.