6 ms·

The US already 'provides' healthcare now. In 2020 the government spent $769 billion on Medicare and $714 billion on the military- so, America spends more on hea

The US already 'provides' healthcare now. In 2020 the government spent $769 billion on Medicare and $714 billion on the military- so, America spends more on healthcare for the elderly than the entire military budget. The government also spent $458 billion on Medicaid- combining the two, America spent 70% more on healthcare than the military. That's without getting into other social spending like Social Security, which alone is another 60% higher than the entire military budget. Despite the common misperception, the US spends way, way more on social welfare expenditures than defense! I am personally fine with that, I'm just fascinated that so many people believe otherwise when the government publishes its budget online for anyone to see https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170

arcticbull 5y ago
I would argue of course that a 50-50 split between medicare and the armed forces is totally irrational in the first place :) It's more an issue of value for money, of course, as US per capita expenditure on medical care is 2x what Canada pays, and still manages not to actually cover everyone. In theory the medicare + medicaid + VA budget should be enough to cover everyone, yet it only covers 40% of Americans.
- sornaensis 5y ago
  The US spends more per capita because we don't control prices the same way other sane countries do; the military budget rhetoric is just a smokescreen to keep people voting in folks who are lining their own pockets. As if shrinking one would increase the effectiveness of the other. The money and resources are THERE they just don't get USED effectively.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Indeed, and disinformation about alternative systems. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...
  - philwelch 5y ago
    There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is that US salaries are significantly higher.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Not significantly vs say Canada, especially when you factor in costs being much lower in Canada too. For instance, OBGYNs have to pay up to $200K per year in medical malpractice insurance in the US, vs a maximum of $40K CAD in Canada. However, I have nothing against lowering physician salaries from Lambo to BMW if it means everyone is covered. This is not a position I shy away from. Further, if 10% of houses burned down each year because firefighters were being paid $10M in salary, would we shrug and say that salaries are just higher here? How about if 10% of the US landmass was undefended because everyone in the army made $500K. I would hope not.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        Firefighter and soldier pay is also higher in the US. Though, back to the original point, the US also has an effective enough military that most NATO members basically half-ass their own defense, which is how they can afford to spend so much money on their social programs.
        trasz 5y ago
        That's often said, but it's simply not true. NATO members generally don't have enemies that would be willing to attack them; the only real potential enemy, Russia, is too weak, and Europe is already its main commercial customer.
        nradov 5y ago
        Russia would absolutely try to seize parts of the Baltic states of they could get away with it, just like Ukraine.
        5y ago
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
Don't forget that something like $50bn of the defense budget is actually TRICARE, which is itself a healthcare program.
duped 5y ago
I think the point is that it's still not enough. It's great that we spend 2/3rds of the national budget on programs that directly help people. It's a shame that they only help 1/3rd of Americans.

arcticbull 5y ago

I would argue of course that a 50-50 split between medicare and the armed forces is totally irrational in the first place :) It's more an issue of value for money, of course, as US per capita expenditure on medical care is 2x what Canada pays, and still manages not to actually cover everyone. In theory the medicare + medicaid + VA budget should be enough to cover everyone, yet it only covers 40% of Americans.

sornaensis 5y ago
The US spends more per capita because we don't control prices the same way other sane countries do; the military budget rhetoric is just a smokescreen to keep people voting in folks who are lining their own pockets. As if shrinking one would increase the effectiveness of the other. The money and resources are THERE they just don't get USED effectively.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Indeed, and disinformation about alternative systems. [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-former-cigna-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/884307565/after-pushing-lies-...
- philwelch 5y ago
  There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is that US salaries are significantly higher.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Not significantly vs say Canada, especially when you factor in costs being much lower in Canada too. For instance, OBGYNs have to pay up to $200K per year in medical malpractice insurance in the US, vs a maximum of $40K CAD in Canada. However, I have nothing against lowering physician salaries from Lambo to BMW if it means everyone is covered. This is not a position I shy away from. Further, if 10% of houses burned down each year because firefighters were being paid $10M in salary, would we shrug and say that salaries are just higher here? How about if 10% of the US landmass was undefended because everyone in the army made $500K. I would hope not.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      Firefighter and soldier pay is also higher in the US. Though, back to the original point, the US also has an effective enough military that most NATO members basically half-ass their own defense, which is how they can afford to spend so much money on their social programs.
      - trasz 5y ago
        That's often said, but it's simply not true. NATO members generally don't have enemies that would be willing to attack them; the only real potential enemy, Russia, is too weak, and Europe is already its main commercial customer.
        nradov 5y ago
        Russia would absolutely try to seize parts of the Baltic states of they could get away with it, just like Ukraine.
        5y ago

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

Don't forget that something like $50bn of the defense budget is actually TRICARE, which is itself a healthcare program.

duped 5y ago

I think the point is that it's still not enough. It's great that we spend 2/3rds of the national budget on programs that directly help people. It's a shame that they only help 1/3rd of Americans.