4 ms·

“Medicare for all”, the single payer universal healthcare system in the US, was projected to cost between $16-34T [1] over a decade. I know there are some big q

“Medicare for all”, the single payer universal healthcare system in the US, was projected to cost between $16-34T [1] over a decade. I know there are some big questions around the actual cost of US aggression / state terrorism since 9/11 (ie 6.4T vs 2T as per other entries in this thread). A rough 80/20 analysis suggests: * We could have funded free healthcare to roughly one quarter of the US population for 10 years (see [1]) * We could have funded free medication for all US citizens for 20 years (assuming US spends an average $1100/yr per patient, approx double of other countries [2], viz a biz the estimated spend of $1K USD / yr per US citizen spent over 20 years on aggression since 9-11 mentioned above) * … I quite like the following quote by Noam Chomsky on US international terror in Afghanistan (and Nicaragua, Iraq, Sudan and many other places): “ The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” That’s the official doctrine. If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. That’s what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And that’s official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. It’s simply part of state action, not just the U.S. of course.” [3] It sums up the meaninglessness quite well. [1] https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost [2] https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm#indicator-chart https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm#... [3] https://monthlyreview.org/2001/11/01/the-united-states-is-a-leading-terrorist-state/ https://monthlyreview.org/2001/11/01/the-united-states-is-a-...

nightski 5y ago
It's never been a matter of money. We've seen the government can pass multi trillion dollar bills on demand and increase the budget at will. That's what is lacking, the political power/will to pass such legislation. It's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with this war or its cost.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > It's never been a matter of money. We've seen the government can pass multi trillion dollar bills on demand and increase the budget at will. Not without consequences. Contrary to the headlines, we can’t simply print as much money into existence as we want. For example, the actual cost of the war was closer to $2T. The $6.4T number quoted in this headline is the theoretical sum total including interest payments on the debt well into the future. Simply passing bills to spend money that we don’t have may get things done, but our children have to pay for it eventually. Even cheap debt must still be serviced. A significant portion of your tax bill every year goes to servicing interest on national debt. So no, it’s not simply a matter of political will to spend all the money we want. There are limits.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Yeah I agree, you can't print money without consequences. But my point was when the political will exists things seem to get done regardless of whether we can afford them or not.
  - minikites 5y ago
    >Simply passing bills to spend money that we don’t have may get things done, but our children have to pay for it eventually. I always see this argument, but never a deeper reason why. As far as I know, the projections for every developed economy looks like this, is every country going to go bankrupt eventually? If the economy is growing, we can in fact print money with little to no consequence of inflation. The US can "borrow" money incredibly cheaply. Government spending stimulates the economy, we can spend and do much more than we currently are, if we merely choose to build instead of destroy.
    - sk2020 5y ago
      Why not round everyone’s bank account up to the nearest $1,000,000,000,000,000? Wouldn’t such unprecedented “stimulus” create unprecedented growth and end poverty forever? Would our newfound quadrillions end scarcity of resources? If not, why not?
m_ke 5y ago
Considering that we spend 4 trillion a year on healthcare now, medicare for all would save us a few trillion and cover everyone.
vmception 5y ago
A healthier population would lower healthcare costs Just like building one clean water resource in an African village reduces costly ailments by orders of magnitude
tootie 5y ago
We did fund healthcare to about 10% of the country during the midst of the war on terror.
thatwasunusual 5y ago
> “Medicare for all”, the single payer universal healthcare system in the US, was projected to cost [...] Are you American?
- hestefisk 5y ago
  No, but I'm an avid follower of American politics.

nightski 5y ago

It's never been a matter of money. We've seen the government can pass multi trillion dollar bills on demand and increase the budget at will. That's what is lacking, the political power/will to pass such legislation. It's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with this war or its cost.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> It's never been a matter of money. We've seen the government can pass multi trillion dollar bills on demand and increase the budget at will. Not without consequences. Contrary to the headlines, we can’t simply print as much money into existence as we want. For example, the actual cost of the war was closer to $2T. The $6.4T number quoted in this headline is the theoretical sum total including interest payments on the debt well into the future. Simply passing bills to spend money that we don’t have may get things done, but our children have to pay for it eventually. Even cheap debt must still be serviced. A significant portion of your tax bill every year goes to servicing interest on national debt. So no, it’s not simply a matter of political will to spend all the money we want. There are limits.
- nightski 5y ago
  Yeah I agree, you can't print money without consequences. But my point was when the political will exists things seem to get done regardless of whether we can afford them or not.
- minikites 5y ago
  >Simply passing bills to spend money that we don’t have may get things done, but our children have to pay for it eventually. I always see this argument, but never a deeper reason why. As far as I know, the projections for every developed economy looks like this, is every country going to go bankrupt eventually? If the economy is growing, we can in fact print money with little to no consequence of inflation. The US can "borrow" money incredibly cheaply. Government spending stimulates the economy, we can spend and do much more than we currently are, if we merely choose to build instead of destroy.
  - sk2020 5y ago
    Why not round everyone’s bank account up to the nearest $1,000,000,000,000,000? Wouldn’t such unprecedented “stimulus” create unprecedented growth and end poverty forever? Would our newfound quadrillions end scarcity of resources? If not, why not?

m_ke 5y ago

Considering that we spend 4 trillion a year on healthcare now, medicare for all would save us a few trillion and cover everyone.

vmception 5y ago

A healthier population would lower healthcare costs Just like building one clean water resource in an African village reduces costly ailments by orders of magnitude

tootie 5y ago

We did fund healthcare to about 10% of the country during the midst of the war on terror.

thatwasunusual 5y ago

> “Medicare for all”, the single payer universal healthcare system in the US, was projected to cost [...] Are you American?

hestefisk 5y ago
No, but I'm an avid follower of American politics.