Today's health wonkery is outsourced to the fine economists over at Angry Bear, where Cactus has produced some tables showing that total health spending grew more slowly under Democrats* and, more tellingly, total health spending is inversely correlated with government involvement in the health sector. Correlation isn't causation, but it's not necessarily meaningless either. I'll let Cactus explain:
The correlation between the government's share of the nation's healthcare expenses and the rate at which these expenses rise is negative. In plain English – the more involved the government gets in healthcare, the slower the healthcare costs rise. Sure, correlation is not causality, but if private health insurance was the panacea the president makes it out to be, the correlation between government involvement in healthcare and the rate at which healthcare costs increase should be positive.
Confounding factors are possible, but I'd like to actually hear some believable hypotheses for what they are. This data isn't a surprise to anyone who reads this blog: There's not a single government-run system in the world that pays even 75% of what America does for per capita health expenses. That the same relationship is is weakly exhibited in our timid experiments with public care -- see this old post of Kate Steadman's for some striking graphs on Medicare and cost containment -- in this country doesn't surprise. That the right can continue to claim that more privatization is the answer, however, does.
*I'm a little skeptical about the importance of this data. Growth was very slow under Clinton, for instance, because of managed care, not anything Clinton did. On the other hand, total growth resulting from Bush will be very high because of the massive giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies that is Medicare Part D. In his case, the corporatist ideology actually is to blame.
