Or it could be that in 1950 kids were still dying of polio. It could be that in 1950 there were NO cat-scans to discover cancer in time to save your life. It could be that in 1950 there were NO tests that identified birth defects that are now treated in the womb. I remember in 1950, I had my appendix taken out. I was hospitalized for a week. The advances we've made in optometry today might've seemed like science-fiction in 1950. How come glasses and contact lenses don't cost $10,000?
It's interesting that you mention your weeklong hostpital stay. In 1950 most middle-class families could afford to pay for such a stay out-of-pocket. Today such a stay could easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.
It could be that in 1950 there were very few medical malpractice suits.
Malpractice lawsuits do indeed contribute to the rise in medical costs. Some people are quick to sue because it's easy money. Liability lawsuits run up the cost of other things as well, not just health care. However, this does not justify government wealth redistribution programs for poor people.
In 1950, when you had your appendectomy were you required to fill out pages of "release of liability" forms?
Your “deductive” reasoning left out the advances made, the costs of research for that advancement and the costs incurred because those that would have died in 1950 of certain conditions people with the same conditions are now living but require expensive care to do so.
As I mentioned to another poster earlier today, the cost of research, development, and the risks associated with investment do not equate to rises in costs down the road. Eight years ago a 1GB hard drive cost $1000. Today an 80GB hard drive costs $100. Why doesn't an 80GB hard drive cost $10,000 today. As goods and services become more common and refined the costs decline.
I just pointed out that you left out salient points in your "deductive" reasoning. Insurance and health care are not compatible. Insurance is a bet against getting sick and health care is an iron clad guarantee that you will. While we have made tremendous advances in the ability to keep people alive, that, very often comes at the cost of the required technology to do so. Insurance companies that in 1950 charged "dollars per month" were not faced with decades of dialysis, heart transplants and the never ending costs of anti-rejection drugs, and treatments that do not "cure" the problem BUT do extend the lifespan and the costs to the insurance underwriters as a result in medical equipment and various exotic medications. Government regulation has minimal impact on those costs. In 1950, there was no such thing as an Oncologist, much less a Urologist it was your family doctor that gave you either penicillin or some variation of sulfa drug to treat your infection and cancer was not even seriously attacked since there was no effective treatment. . Hell heart bypass surgery was not even on the radar screen. Nope, you may as well admit that you posted the wrong example to "prove" your point.