Yes, and I can think of at least one thread on a similar topic that got closed.
That inevitably happens when folks are so "split" on the "causes" of a certain "problem" in our society. Some think it's the gummint's fault and some think it's business's fault. A few even think it's our own fault (we have met the enemy, etc.). The data is probably there to ultimately tease out what "share" of blame there is to split up. But, no one really wants to use data when "opinion" is so much easier to advance than facts.
For instance, the article is one of the few which puts at least part of the "blame" on the governments (or collectives or whatever you want to call it) of OTHER countries who piggy-back off of US investment and research. You rarely see this piece of the puzzle. It's not the whole story, but it's usually ignored when folks debate the issue (it's easier to just blame those "evil fill-in-the-blank")
But, the "answer" to the issue of health care costs is actually quite simple. Freeze all health care costs. Then, there will be no more innovation and at some point (after the last patent expires) all health care costs will be determined strictly by supply and demand. Of course, there will be no more cancer research, no more drug research, no more innovation which saves more lives or makes lives more worth living. AND, HC services and products will be "honestly" rationed instead of doing it through price or gummint fiat.
I say none of this with "tongue-in-cheek". I don't think it's a good idea, but it would work. Then, we would finally have a chance to see where the real "fault" is. Now, it's too clouded by the difference in "quality" of health care available to us. Who believes that the current level of HC is similar to what it was 40 years ago. It SHOULD cost more when now, you can pop a "purple pill" and prevent ulcers, for instance. In the old days, a surgeon had to slice you open and cut out half a stomach, several nerves, and risk your life. Now GERD pills are so common that they are probably over used. But virtually NO one has surgery for ulcers any more.
There are dozens of other examples where the current "outcomes" are much, much better than they used to be. Unfortunately, the alternatives to the old methods/procedures cost a bundle to come up with in research (and, yes, marketing) costs. Who would have taken the "purple pill" if a drug company didn't hawk it on TV? Is it over prescribed? Yes. Does it cost more than it costs to make it (i.e., profit)? Yes. Could the pill be sold for less? Yes. But, does anyone want to go back to the days of surgical intervention for ulcers? I don't think so. Do we hope for yet more effective (and less side-effect) drugs. I think we do.
So the issues gets very cloudy. There are so many folks involved (docs, drug companies, medical device companies, for-profit hospitals, not-for-prifit hospitals, insurance companies, gummint entities (fed, state, even local), tort lawyers, patients demanding "purple pills" when they don't really need them, etc., etc., etc. Finger pointing is the easiest thing in the world. Understanding the interrelationship of all the factors (even deciding what all the factors are) is not quite so simple. Then, if we could actually "assign" the appropriate "blame" to the various parties, there are still political issues as well as economic issues to deal with. (Who would be the first to "limit" end-of-life intervention "excesses" for instance?)
It's one thing to figure out "what's wrong". It's quite another to figure out how to fix it. AND, so far, we really don't know what's wrong (even though we all have our own opinion of what is wrong.)
Because it's so complex and because we all have way more opinions than facts, can Porky be far behind. I think not. Of course, that's just my opinion
so YMMV