Adjusted for Inflation

I agree with KTH. They probably got these numbers from a conservative think tank's press release. They don't know how to adjust them for inflation and furthermore don't want to risk the consequences of botching the adjustment.

Grr Kevin, this is where you have almost always been so annoying.

It would be one thing for me to ask your question of a friend.

But goddamit, you have a Mother Jones email address and a Mother Jones phone number and are backed up by Mother Jones. Why the fuck aren't you asking these two dipshits your question directly?

The Washington Post has gone up in price since 1977, but has it gotten any better?

It's an appalling article. Notice the part on stents. Along with all the "we're spending more and living longer" stuff, he talks about stents. Which cost a lot more. And don't seem to work. But that doesn't fit with his "higher costs are simply because healthcare works!" thesis, so he just ignores the data.

Not to mention he fails to cover the fact that tons of patients in hospitals get the pretty ineffective $3k stent while failing to get the incredibly effective 30 cent aspirin. And the fact that decreasing smoking and lifestyle improvements, which are FREE, are responsible for half the decline...ah, that's mentioned in passing. Oh, and health disparities increasing in that time doesn't get mentioned (ie, women & minorities have seen their heart attack outcomes improve far less than white guys...so, what does that say?), and the fact that healthcare systems are being forced to very expensively deal with problems that a stronger safety net would help handle far more cheaply (eg: better enforcement of housing laws on landlords=less vermin=fewer asthma attacks.)

And the dead wrong observations. Like he says uninsurance isn't a big deal, but then goes on to say that delay in getting to the hospital is a big deal. Uh, you think maybe that's got something to do with people--insured and uninsured--freaking out about ER cost? Or are we pretending that insured people still believe that their ER visit will be covered if it turns out to be indigestion? Kind of a strong quality case for healthcare reform.

So, yes, it's awesome that we're--inflation adjusted--spending about twice as much on heart attacks and dying only a quarter as often. It is GOOD for us to spend more money on things that extend and improve our lives. Hey, if the green pill costs 3x and much and works twice as well, we SHOULD spend the money on it!

But that doesn't mean all the money we're spending is automatically being spent well. If we did less stenting and more aspirin, we'd have BETTER survival at much, much lower cost. But that's not mentioned in this article.

The relevant question in healthcare is not how can we make our system spend more on expensive things that work. We are very good at that (and it is a good thing). The relevant question is how can we spend less on expensive things that don't work, spend more upfront so we have less occasion to need the expensive things that work, and how can we spend more on inexpensive things that DO work.

This article does NOTHING to advance that debate. It sets it back. Endlessly frustrating.

Terrific -- all this tells me is that given my income (and adjusting for inflation) and considering the 20% co-pay, I couldn't have afforded to have a heart attack in 1977 and I sure as hell couldn't afford to have one now.