That big pinkish/maroonish line that gets bigger and bigger until it dominates nearly 20% of the graph at the right represents HEALTH CARE. There is no reason why we should not be able to put aside our ideological differences and fix the health care system in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Some of you are failing to grasp that this graph is about expenditure. Not about costs.This is more about allocation than it is about cost of goods. That's an entirely different chart altogether.In regard to everyone talking about health care, this is comparing what people spent then vs. what they spend now. Compare the amount of uninsured today vs. 40 years ago. Unfortunately, people don't have a choice of costs when it comes to insurance. You either have it and you pay out the ass for it or you don't have it at all. There is not 'value meal' of health insurance where you can choose to spend what you can afford (say, $90 a month. That wouldn't get you s**t.)A lot of those people have figured out that they can just as easily go to an emergency room and get treatment without having to pay for it. That's a law...care is guaranteed at hospitals when someone comes through the ER doors even without insurance. Also, things to be taken into consideration...amount of people on state or federal assistance then vs. now.This says absolutely nothing about health care except that people are spending less of a PERCENTAGE of their income on it. Says nothing about actual costs of this care or costs of insurance.
"95% of all statistics are made up on the spot"I'd tend to believe visualeconomics.com over anything sponsored by any political party or special interest group.
You're reading it wrong, no question, but it isn't the graphmaker's fault. This is an area graph, not a standard line graph. The peaks you are looking at represent cumulative spending for that category *and everything underneath it*. The amount spent on reading is represented by the width of the white line, not the y coordinate of the white line.
treehugger87Jan 4, 2010
That big pinkish/maroonish line that gets bigger and bigger until it dominates nearly 20% of the graph at the right represents HEALTH CARE. There is no reason why we should not be able to put aside our ideological differences and fix the health care system in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neutron7Jan 5, 2010
well it depends largely on who sponsored the graph.
Closed AccountJan 5, 2010
Some of you are failing to grasp that this graph is about expenditure. Not about costs.This is more about allocation than it is about cost of goods. That's an entirely different chart altogether.In regard to everyone talking about health care, this is comparing what people spent then vs. what they spend now. Compare the amount of uninsured today vs. 40 years ago. Unfortunately, people don't have a choice of costs when it comes to insurance. You either have it and you pay out the ass for it or you don't have it at all. There is not 'value meal' of health insurance where you can choose to spend what you can afford (say, $90 a month. That wouldn't get you s**t.)A lot of those people have figured out that they can just as easily go to an emergency room and get treatment without having to pay for it. That's a law...care is guaranteed at hospitals when someone comes through the ER doors even without insurance. Also, things to be taken into consideration...amount of people on state or federal assistance then vs. now.This says absolutely nothing about health care except that people are spending less of a PERCENTAGE of their income on it. Says nothing about actual costs of this care or costs of insurance.
bizzywhoJan 5, 2010
I highly doubt that health care companies paid VisualEconomics.com to skew their graph, if that's what you're suggesting...
tas08Jan 5, 2010
I'm most surprised by the Healthcare and Apparel parts!
herojonJan 5, 2010
"95% of all statistics are made up on the spot"I'd tend to believe visualeconomics.com over anything sponsored by any political party or special interest group.
covertbadgerJan 5, 2010
You're reading it wrong, no question, but it isn't the graphmaker's fault. This is an area graph, not a standard line graph. The peaks you are looking at represent cumulative spending for that category *and everything underneath it*. The amount spent on reading is represented by the width of the white line, not the y coordinate of the white line.
terpdxJan 5, 2010
What do you figure accounts for the spike in entertainment spending in the early 70's?
sashnJan 5, 2010
"A full breakdown of con-sumber spending..."?Meaningless paragraph on the top right.