Is healthcare the biggest share of the taxpayer burden?
Healthcare is the single largest category of federal spending, but it is not the majority of the taxpayer burden on its own. It is, however, the biggest slice of the pie among all categories.
🧭 What the numbers show
Two authoritative sources line up clearly:
The federal government spent $1.6 trillion on major health programs in 2024 — about one‑quarter of all federal spending.
Total federal spending in FY2025 was $7.01 trillion, so healthcare’s share is roughly 23–25% of the entire budget.
That includes:
Medicare
Medicaid
ACA subsidies
CHIP
Veterans’ health programs
Federal health agencies
No other single category (defense, Social Security, interest on the debt, etc.) exceeds that combined total.
🧩 How it compares to other major categories
Here’s the rough ranking of federal spending categories today:
Healthcare — ~25% of federal spending (largest single category)
Social Security — slightly smaller than healthcare, but close
Defense — significantly smaller than either Social Security or healthcare
Interest on the national debt — rising fast, projected to surpass defense soon
Everything else combined — education, transportation, agriculture, etc.
So yes: healthcare is the biggest single category, but it is not a majority of the burden. It’s just the largest slice in a fragmented budget.
🧨 Why this matters for your 2033–2035 collapse concern
The key pressure point isn’t just that healthcare is the largest category — it’s that:
Healthcare costs grow faster than GDP
Medicare’s trust fund hits insolvency around 2036 (projected 11% automatic cuts)
Medicaid is open‑ended and grows with enrollment and medical inflation
Interest payments are exploding, crowding out discretionary spending
Social Security’s trust fund exhaustion around 2033 forces either cuts or new revenue
So the real structural problem is the combination of:
Healthcare (largest and fastest‑growing)
Social Security (second largest, also growing)
Interest (growing even faster)
Together, these three categories will consume nearly all federal revenue in the 2030s.
That’s the mechanism behind your “matter of time” argument.
🧠 The deeper structural insight
Healthcare is the biggest category, but the real issue is that all three major mandatory categories are growing faster than the tax base, while discretionary spending (the part Congress can actually cut) is shrinking as a share of the budget.
This is why the elimination of presidential tariff authority doesn’t change the trajectory — tariffs were never a meaningful revenue source in the modern era.
A question to sharpen the next step
Are you trying to understand which category breaks the system first, or what the federal government could realistically cut or change to avoid the 2033–2035 crunch?
The cleanest way to see what’s “huge” and what’s “tiny” in federal healthcare spending is to break it into its actual components. The numbers below come from the most recent national health expenditure data and federal budget analyses. They show very different scales inside the big healthcare bucket.
🧩 The major components of U.S. healthcare spending
These figures describe national health expenditures (NHE) — the whole system — which helps you see which parts of healthcare are structurally large. Federal spending is a subset of this, but the proportions track closely.
🏛️ 1. Medicare — $1.118 trillion (21% of all U.S. health spending)
Medicare is one of the two giants. It grows fast because of aging demographics and high per‑capita costs.
🏥 2. Medicaid — $931.7 billion (18% of all health spending)
The second giant. Medicaid is jointly funded by states and the federal government, but the federal share is large and rising.
🏢 3. Private health insurance — $1.644 trillion (31% of all health spending)
This isn’t federal spending, but it shows where the system’s weight sits. Private insurance is the single largest payer category in the entire U.S. system.
💳 4. Out‑of‑pocket spending — $556.6 billion (11%)
This is what households pay directly: deductibles, copays, cash payments.
🧪 5. Other public health programs — $590.5 billion (11%)
This includes:
Veterans Health Administration
Indian Health Service
Public health agencies
Miscellaneous federal/state programs
🏗️ What the money actually buys
These are the service categories, which show where the dollars flow inside the system.
🏨 Hospitals — $1.634 trillion
Hospitals are the single largest service category.
👩⚕️ Physician & clinical services — $1.109 trillion
Office visits, outpatient clinics, specialists.
💊 Prescription drugs, long‑term care, home health, equipment
These categories are smaller individually but add up significantly.
🧭 What’s “huge” vs. “tiny” in federal terms
If we zoom back to federal spending (not the whole system), the picture simplifies:
The huge components
Medicare — the largest single federal health program
Medicaid + CHIP — nearly as large when combined
ACA subsidies — smaller than the two giants but still substantial
Veterans’ health programs — meaningful but far below the big three
The tiny components
CDC, NIH, FDA, HRSA, SAMHSA, and other health agencies
Public health grants
Global health programs
Rural health programs
These are rounding errors compared to Medicare/Medicaid. They matter for society, but not for the federal ledger.
🧠 The structural insight
The “healthcare” category is huge because of Medicare + Medicaid, not because of public health agencies or administrative costs. Those smaller programs are politically visible but fiscally trivial.
The real drivers are:
Aging population → Medicare growth
Medical inflation → affects both Medicare and Medicaid
Enrollment cycles → Medicaid expands during downturns
High U.S. unit prices → hospitals, specialists, drugs
This is why healthcare dominates the federal budget: the big entitlement programs grow automatically and outpace revenue growth.
A question to sharpen the next step
Do you want the federal-only breakdown (Medicare vs. Medicaid vs. ACA vs. VA), or the whole-system breakdown (hospitals vs. doctors vs. drugs) laid out in a table so you can see the proportions side by side?
Healthcare costs didn’t just drift upward after 1965 — they inflected, and the inflection lines up with a set of structural changes that Medicare and Medicaid triggered. The programs didn’t cause everything, but they changed the physics of the system. What follows is the structural picture, grounded in the historical analyses from CMS and long‑run expenditure studies.
🧭 The core shift: from a cash market to a third‑party‑payer system
Before 1965, most care was paid out‑of‑pocket. Prices were constrained by what households could actually pay. After Medicare/Medicaid:
A huge new payer entered the market with deep pockets.
Hospitals and physicians could raise prices without losing patients.
Utilization surged because millions of elderly and poor people suddenly had coverage.
CMS’s historical review notes that non‑price factors (more use, more intensity, more technology) dominated spending growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s — exactly the Medicare/Medicaid rollout window.
This is the classic “moral hazard” dynamic: when someone else pays, consumption rises.
🏥 Hospitals transformed from charities to capital‑intensive enterprises
Medicare reimbursed hospitals on a cost‑plus basis in the early years. That meant:
Whatever hospitals spent, Medicare paid — plus a margin.
Hospitals expanded capacity, bought new equipment, and raised wages.
Capital investment exploded because it was effectively subsidized.
CMS’s historical data show that hospital spending became the largest and fastest‑growing category in the decades after 1965.
This is where the “medical arms race” began.
🧪 Technology adoption accelerated because price sensitivity vanished
Once the elderly had guaranteed coverage, the incentive to adopt new, expensive technologies skyrocketed:
Dialysis
Cardiac surgery
Intensive care
Imaging (CT, MRI)
New pharmaceuticals
The CMS historical analysis explicitly identifies technology adoption as a major non‑price driver of spending growth in the post‑1965 era.
In a cash market, many of these technologies would have diffused more slowly.
🧾 Prices rose faster than general inflation
From the mid‑1970s through the early 1980s, medical prices rose faster than overall inflation. CMS attributes this to:
Strong demand from newly insured populations
Provider market power
Weak price controls
Inflationary wage pressures in hospitals
Medical inflation became a structural feature of the system.
🧩 Medicaid expanded far beyond its original scope
Medicaid began as a narrow welfare‑linked program. Over decades, it expanded to:
Pregnant women
Children
Disabled adults
Long‑term care populations
“Medically needy” groups
Duke University’s analysis shows how Medicaid’s political development turned it into a much broader and more expensive program than originally envisioned.
This expansion added millions of high‑cost enrollees.
🧠 The deeper structural drivers (beyond Medicare/Medicaid)
Even without the 1965 programs, U.S. healthcare costs would have risen — but not at the same speed. The structural drivers include:
Fee‑for‑service incentives (more services = more revenue)
Fragmented insurance markets
High administrative overhead
Provider consolidation
High U.S. unit prices (especially hospitals and specialists)
Cultural expectations for maximal care
But the key point is: Medicare and Medicaid amplified all of these forces by injecting guaranteed payment streams into the system.
🧨 The synthesis
Post‑1965 cost growth is best understood as a feedback loop:
Government coverage expands.
Utilization rises.
Providers expand capacity and adopt new technology.
Prices rise because payers can’t say no.
Insurance becomes more necessary because prices rise.
More people get insured → utilization rises again.
CMS’s long‑run data show that non‑price factors (use, intensity, technology) drove the early surge, and price growth took over in the 1970s–1980s.
That’s the structural engine.
A question to move us forward
Do you want to dig into which of these drivers mattered most, or how the U.S. could have structured Medicare/Medicaid differently to avoid the runaway cost curve?
The “huge new player” was the federal government itself, entering the healthcare market for the first time as a massive, guaranteed payer through Medicare and Medicaid, both enacted in 1965.
That single move instantly transformed the economics of American medicine. Medicare alone enrolled 19 million people in its first year, and Medicaid funding began flowing to states at the same time.
How the federal government became the dominant payer
Before 1965, the U.S. healthcare system was a mix of:
Out‑of‑pocket payments
Some employer insurance
Charity care
Patchwork state programs
There was no national payer with deep pockets.
Medicare and Medicaid changed that overnight:
Medicare provided hospital and medical insurance to nearly all Americans over 65.
Medicaid provided medical assistance to low‑income families, the elderly poor, the disabled, and other vulnerable groups.
This wasn’t just adding another insurer. It was adding the largest payer the system had ever seen, with:
Guaranteed reimbursement
No ability for patients to “shop around”
No price sensitivity
A mandate to cover expensive populations (elderly, disabled, poor)
Hospitals and physicians suddenly had a payer that could not walk away and would pay whatever the service cost.
Why this mattered so much
Once the federal government entered as a payer:
Hospitals expanded capacity because Medicare reimbursed on a cost‑plus basis.
Technology adoption accelerated because price was no longer a barrier.
Utilization surged because millions of people who previously couldn’t afford care now had coverage.
Prices rose because the new payer didn’t impose strong cost controls.
This is why economists describe 1965 as the moment the U.S. moved from a cash‑constrained market to a third‑party‑payer system with the federal government at the center.
The structural consequence
From that point forward, the federal government became:
The largest single buyer of healthcare
The price‑insensitive payer that set the tone for the entire market
The engine behind the rapid expansion of hospital systems, specialists, and medical technology
And because Medicare and Medicaid cover the highest‑cost populations, their spending grew faster than the economy.
A natural next step
Do you want to dig into how Medicare’s early cost‑plus reimbursement system specifically fueled hospital expansion, or how Medicaid’s later expansions created a second long‑run cost engine?
You’re putting your finger on something real, but the cleanest way to make sense of it is to separate the moral narrative (“liberal do‑gooders made it unaffordable”) from the structural mechanics (what actually changed in the system). When you do that, the picture becomes clearer and more powerful than any partisan framing.
The short version is: Healthcare was affordable when it was cheap. It stopped being cheap when the system changed from a cash‑constrained market to a guaranteed‑payer market. Once that happened, every actor—hospitals, insurers, drug companies, device makers, specialists—responded rationally to the new incentives.
No ideology required. Just structure.
🧭 What healthcare looked like before 1965
It was “affordable” because:
Most care was low‑tech and low‑intensity.
Hospitals were small, local, and often nonprofit or charity‑based.
Doctors had limited tools; many conditions simply couldn’t be treated.
Prices were constrained by what people could pay out of pocket.
Life expectancy was lower, chronic disease burden smaller.
In other words: It was cheap because it didn’t do very much.
🏛️ What changed after 1965
Medicare and Medicaid didn’t just add coverage. They changed the physics of the market:
A massive payer with deep pockets entered the system.
Hospitals were reimbursed on a cost‑plus basis—spend more, get more.
Utilization surged because millions of elderly and poor people suddenly had coverage.
Technology adoption exploded because price was no longer a barrier.
Providers consolidated and gained pricing power.
Insurers became intermediaries rather than price‑disciplining buyers.
This is the moment the U.S. moved from:
“What can people afford?” → “What can be billed?”
Once that shift happens, costs rise automatically.
🧨 Why it became unaffordable for everyone
The same structural forces that made care more available also made it more expensive:
1. The elderly are the most expensive population
Medicare covers the group with the highest per‑capita costs. As the population aged, the bill grew faster than the tax base.
2. Technology drives cost
Every new machine, drug, and procedure adds capability and cost. The U.S. adopted them faster than any other country.
3. Hospitals became capital‑intensive enterprises
Once cost‑plus reimbursement ended, hospitals had already built a high‑cost footprint they had to maintain.
4. Insurance insulated consumers from price
When someone else pays, demand rises. When demand rises, prices rise—especially in a market with limited competition.
5. The government became the payer of last resort
As prices rose, more people needed insurance. As more people needed insurance, the government subsidized more. As the government subsidized more, prices rose further.
This is a feedback loop, not a partisan project.
🧩 Why the “liberal do‑gooders” framing feels true
Because the intent of Medicare and Medicaid was humanitarian—cover the elderly and the poor. And the effect was a massive expansion of spending.
But the real driver wasn’t ideology. It was the introduction of a guaranteed payer into a market that had no price discipline.
If conservatives had created the same structure, the same cost explosion would have followed. If liberals had created a different structure (e.g., global budgets, price controls), the explosion might not have happened.
The outcome is structural, not moral.
🧠 The deeper truth
Healthcare didn’t become unaffordable because of compassion. It became unaffordable because:
The U.S. built a high‑tech, high‑intensity, open‑ended medical system
And then attached it to a payer (the federal government)
That cannot walk away, cannot negotiate hard, and must cover the most expensive people
While private insurers peg their prices to the same cost structure
That combination guarantees rising costs.
🧭 Where this leaves the taxpayer
You’re right: The U.S. government can no longer afford the system it created. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume nearly all federal revenue by the mid‑2030s. The taxpayer is the backstop for a system whose cost curve outgrew the tax base decades ago.
A question to move the conversation forward
Do you want to explore what alternative structures the U.S. could have adopted in 1965, or what options remain now that the system is locked in and aging is accelerating?
You’re naming something historically accurate — the federal government chose to become the payer, and that choice created the conditions for the high‑tech, high‑intensity, open‑ended medical system that followed. The key is to separate agency (what policymakers did) from mechanism (what the system did once the incentives changed). That lets us talk about the structure without drifting into partisan opinion.
🏛️ What policymakers actually did in 1965
Congress and the Johnson administration made two explicit decisions:
Create Medicare: a universal, federally funded insurance program for the elderly.
Create Medicaid: a joint federal–state program for the poor and medically needy.
Those decisions were framed as moral obligations — “no older American should go without medical care” — but they were also structural interventions. They inserted the federal government into a market where it had never been a payer before.
This is the part you’re pointing to: The government voluntarily stepped into the role of payer.
That is historically correct.
🧩 What that decision triggered
Once the federal government became the payer, the system reorganized around the new incentives. This is the part that matters most for understanding the cost explosion.
1. A payer with deep pockets removes price constraints
Before 1965, hospitals and doctors had to price services within the limits of what households could pay. After 1965, they could price services within the limits of what Medicare and Medicaid would reimburse.
That’s a different universe.
2. Cost‑plus reimbursement encouraged expansion
Medicare’s early rules reimbursed hospitals for whatever they spent, plus a margin. Hospitals responded rationally:
Build more wings
Buy more machines
Hire more staff
Increase intensity of care
This wasn’t ideology. It was arithmetic.
3. Technology adoption accelerated
Once the payer was guaranteed, the medical industry had a green light to innovate:
Dialysis
Cardiac surgery
Intensive care
Imaging
New pharmaceuticals
These technologies are expensive, but they became standard because the payer would pay.
4. Insurance became the norm, not the exception
As prices rose, private insurance became necessary for the middle class. As private insurance expanded, the government subsidized more. As subsidies expanded, prices rose further.
This is the feedback loop that created the modern system.
🧠 The key distinction
You’re right about the agency: Lyndon Johnson and a liberal Congress made the federal government the payer.
But the mechanism that followed wasn’t ideological. It was structural:
A guaranteed payer →
Removes price discipline →
Encourages capacity expansion →
Accelerates technology adoption →
Raises prices →
Increases reliance on insurance →
Expands government subsidies →
Raises prices again
Once the first domino fell, the rest followed automatically.
🧨 Why the system is now unaffordable for both households and the government
The U.S. built a system that:
Covers the most expensive populations (elderly, disabled, poor)
Pays for the most expensive technologies
Has weak price controls
Has fragmented payers
Has high administrative overhead
Has strong provider market power
Has cultural expectations for maximal care
And the federal government is the payer of last resort for all of it.
So yes — the government made the initial choice. But the runaway cost curve is the result of incentives, not ideology.
A natural next step
Do you want to explore what alternative structures Johnson could have chosen in 1965, or what structural reforms are even possible now that the system is locked in and aging is accelerating?
You’re capturing something real in that little dialogue — not as a partisan jab, but as a structural truth about what happens when a government steps into a market without limits, without price discipline, and without an exit strategy. Let me lay it out cleanly, in a way that honors your instinct but keeps it grounded in how systems actually behave.
🧭 What Johnson and Congress actually did in 1965
They made a binding structural commitment:
The federal government would pay for the elderly’s medical care (Medicare).
The federal government would pay for the poor’s medical care (Medicaid).
Payment would be open‑ended — whatever the care cost, the government would cover it.
Hospitals would be reimbursed on a cost‑plus basis — the more they spent, the more they earned.
This wasn’t just “helping people.” It was creating a payer with infinite liability in a sector where costs rise naturally.
That’s the hole.
🏗️ What the system did next (because systems respond to incentives)
Once the government guaranteed payment:
Hospitals expanded capacity.
Specialists proliferated.
Technology adoption accelerated.
Prices rose because the payer couldn’t walk away.
Private insurance followed the same cost structure.
Medicaid expanded far beyond its original scope.
The elderly population grew, increasing Medicare’s load.
The system became high‑tech, high‑intensity, and high‑cost.
This wasn’t ideology. It was the predictable response of a market freed from price constraints.
That’s the dirt sliding back into the hole.
🧨 Why the taxpayer now carries the burden
When the government becomes the payer of last resort:
Every price increase eventually flows to taxpayers.
Every demographic shift (aging, disability) flows to taxpayers.
Every new technology flows to taxpayers.
Every hospital consolidation flows to taxpayers.
Every Medicaid expansion flows to taxpayers.
And because the government can’t refuse care to the elderly or the poor, the liability is infinite while the tax base is finite.
That’s why the hole keeps getting deeper.
🧠 Why the “don’t blame us” dynamic emerges
The political logic is simple:
The programs were created with good intentions.
The cost explosion was unintended.
The system is now locked in.
No politician wants to cut benefits.
No politician wants to raise taxes enough to pay for them.
So everyone blames someone else.
Your little dialogue captures that perfectly:
Liberal policymakers: “We’re helping people — keep digging.”
America: “This hole is getting deeper.”
The system: “Costs are rising automatically.”
Politicians: “Well, don’t blame us.”
It’s not moral failure. It’s structural inevitability once the payer is unlimited and the service is open‑ended.
🧩 The deeper structural truth
Healthcare is not like roads or schools. It is:
Unbounded in demand
Unbounded in cost
Driven by aging
Driven by technology
Driven by provider market power
Driven by cultural expectations
And politically impossible to cut
When you attach that kind of system to a payer with no price discipline, you get exactly what we have now:
A high‑tech, high‑intensity, open‑ended medical system that the government — and the taxpayer — cannot afford.
No comments:
Post a Comment