There's two things that're

There's two things that're wrong with this misleading factuality, about the "rise" in health care costs.

Namely, the basis of the accounting for those health care costs and, secondly, whether those are net increases in debt.

As to the second matter, it is quite misleading to suggest that there is any net debt change, at the federal level.  The program  imposes such taxes as are necessary to pay for its costs, and various regimes as are also necessary to contain future costs.  That's a relatively simple matter to examine and verify, factually,

So, "increased" costs are very much of a fiction, in that sense, because they omit increased revenues, obfuscating the offsetting budgetary balance also in the law.

As for the accounting basis, we are talking about the health of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, generally, abstractly, in the first place, as to how we the people, in the aggregate, might be better or worse off, if care providers were assured that a person coming to them for care could pay them for the care they provided.  The mechanism for that, in America's woefully organized (disorganized) health care markets, is, sadly, to my thinking, for-profit insurance companies.  The Affordable Care Act (aka misleadingly named "Obamacare") addresses the primary problem -- that millions of Americans do not have access to affordable health care, because of the market structure of insurance and of foolish risk taking by individuals.

Despite Ron Paul's highly wrongful suggestion that the Good Samaritan principle is no proper American idea, I believe in it.  I will not argue with anyone who says, as Paul suggests, that we pass by the injured man in a ditch, just leaving him there, injured and in need.  That's just wrong, possibly evil, but mainly just shameful selfishness.  We owe duties to one another, because, frankly, we are born of one another, learn and live by one another, even commanded to be loving one another.

So, as the drinker might say, "Here's to your health!"

The truth implicit, here, in the toast, the very fact implicit in national health care policy, is the impact upon others, when some, a very many others, are not healthy.  What it means, when care is not affordably available, is just this -- America is less healthy, America herself is sicker, weaker than She ought to be -- and only because of money, monied interests.

So, in a sense, those who oppose "Obamacare" are unpatriotic, unAmerican.

But, this is mere prefatory, rhetorical digression, from the main claim, about the basis and biases of accounting.  Health happens.  It will be, as it is.  Accounting's only function is basically allocative, to tell us who will be paying some set of costs -- and thus, accounting is morally neutral; it answers no questions of moral interest to the American people.

(And, it also has no definitive role in public debates, even in questions of the "national" debt!  It is, in short, always a red herring, because it only tells us what the balances are, in various accounts, without having any moral standard for informing us as to which of those various alternative baolances, as a  set, we should prefer.)

Health.  Yours, mine, ours.  Yes, it costs to care for you and me, for us.  We're in that boat together, even if you want to jump ship, swim for yourself, or else, throw me out in the waters deep and shark infested, on the idea of saving yourself. Ayn Rand to the contrary, in fiction more fanciful than fairy tales, we are us, not isolated and unrelated atoms of being.  We are, in short, a people, always and ever a part, not apart, from one another.