6 ms·

> No it hasn't. It rose until about 1980 (mostly until 1970), and it's been about the same for the past 45 years. Yes it has. In 1980 it was 34.25%, in 2022 it

> No it hasn't. It rose until about 1980 (mostly until 1970), and it's been about the same for the past 45 years. Yes it has. In 1980 it was 34.25%, in 2022 it was 36.25%. > And yes, it rose 1925-1980 as we built the modern social services state. With social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and so forth. US government spending on healthcare is about as most other developed countries yet they are able to provide universal or similar healthcare access. Americans spend that amount again privately on healthcare, and the result is worse outcomes in many objective measures of public health. Just one example since healthcare is one of the biggest expenditures. This is not a good thing. The idea that "some government good" = "more government better" or "less government worse" is just not a sound argument. At all. > This was a worldwide phenomenon too, not just the US. People asked for more from their governments. This is a good thing. Not many Americans I know of asked to pay universal healthcare tier costs without getting universal healthcare. Not many asked to pay for forever-wars and interventions and meddling all over the globe. > It does not look like it's currently trending upward, from your own data. It does to me. The linear trend plotted from 1980 to 2022 does have it increasing too.

stouset 2y ago
> Yes it has. In 1980 it was 34.25%, in 2022 it was 36.25%. Honest question, do you expect people to take your position seriously when this is the stat you’re putting up in defense of your argument?
- starspangled 2y ago
  Yes. What would you put up in the defense of an argument that says it has not risen?
  - stouset 2y ago
    2% in 45 years is a completely meaningless amount. You are technically and pedantically correct, but in the context of the actual conversation being had it is so little as to be irrelevant.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      Honest question, do expect people to actually believe you're a serious person interested in rational debate with that kind of response? What Trump / DOGE has proposed or claimed to have cut amounts to far less than $500 billion / year from the budget. Like 1/10th that amount. Yet people are seriously concerned about those cuts. Clearly it's not a reasonable amount, as you would understand if you had any idea of the context of this conversation.
      - stouset 2y ago
        What DOGE has claimed to have cut is a similarly meaningless amount (and likely significantly overinflated), and what's worse, the value we were getting from those expenditures likely greatly exceeds what we were paying for them. $500bn/yr would be about 15% of the annual budget. That number doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.
        starspangled 2y ago
        2% of US GDP is 500 billion. I don't know what you're confused about. I'm taking numbers linked from the IMF so perhaps you know better? Also it's obviously not a 2% increase over 45 years, it's a nearly 6% increase, so not sure if numbers are your strong suit here. At least you did admit I was correct though, so I don't know what you're really continuing to try argue about. What I wrote originally stands.
        kelnos 2y ago
        I think GP misread what you were saying, and thought you were asserting that DOGE had cut $500B/yr of spending. (I sympathize; I read it that way myself at first, but realized what you actually meant during a confused re-read.)
    - Izkata 2y ago
      On the graph they shared earlier, 2020 is 44.82%, exactly on the 1960 - 1992 trendline. The 2022 and 2009 dropoffs coincide with major disruptions (don't know about the late-90s one), which almost seems to hint that's the value we should be looking at: +10.57% in 20 years.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    2% over 40 years is too small to back up the claim that it is "rising steadily" in any meaningful way.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      It's risen almost 6% over 40 years, and you're wrong it's not too small to claim that it's rising.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. It's funny that you latched onto the mention of the year 1980, because if you used 1982 (or 1983, 1984, 1985...) you'd see that it has gone down. The most recent measurement is lower than it was in the years around 1990, and the measurements before covid hit were also lower than those years. And I just realized. If you actually want to go back 40 years from the most recent data point, the year to use is... 1982.
        starspangled 2y ago
        > Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. It really is. > It's funny that you latched onto the mention of the year 1980, Excuse me, I didn't latch onto 1980, crazygringgo nominated that date. > because if you used 1982 (or 1983, 1984, 1985...) you'd see that it has gone down. Sure unless you choose a different end point, right? > The most recent measurement is lower than it was in the years around 1990, and the measurements before covid hit were also lower than those years. A linear regression from 1990 to 2022 has it trending upward too.
        lkbm 2y ago
        > > Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. > It really is. It was dropping for most of the 1990s, and most of the 2010s. So it's been rising steadily over the past 45 years...except for about two decades of that time? This isn't what most people call a steady rise.
jquery 2y ago
There’s no reason we have to be spending so much on healthcare. I’m convinced if Joe Lieberman didn’t block the public option in 2009, or if the Democrats had a spine and actually bypassed the filibuster to make sure the bill was as good as it could be, we’d have universal health care today. Instead, we decided to bail out insurance companies, to the benefit of nobody but insurance companies. We still could have single payer, but that’s not going to happen with the current group in charge.
- starspangled 2y ago
  Right. Healthcare expenditure just looks incredibly wasteful. Even if it is (as its defenders would say) buying more for the money, it just seems to be costing way too much when you look at others. And it's not as though those other developed countries' healthcare systems are paragons of efficiency themselves. That people are so flabbergasted and astounded that voters should be concerned by government spending and waste is actually the incredible thing to me.

stouset 2y ago

> Yes it has. In 1980 it was 34.25%, in 2022 it was 36.25%. Honest question, do you expect people to take your position seriously when this is the stat you’re putting up in defense of your argument?

starspangled 2y ago
Yes. What would you put up in the defense of an argument that says it has not risen?
- stouset 2y ago
  2% in 45 years is a completely meaningless amount. You are technically and pedantically correct, but in the context of the actual conversation being had it is so little as to be irrelevant.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    Honest question, do expect people to actually believe you're a serious person interested in rational debate with that kind of response? What Trump / DOGE has proposed or claimed to have cut amounts to far less than $500 billion / year from the budget. Like 1/10th that amount. Yet people are seriously concerned about those cuts. Clearly it's not a reasonable amount, as you would understand if you had any idea of the context of this conversation.
    - stouset 2y ago
      What DOGE has claimed to have cut is a similarly meaningless amount (and likely significantly overinflated), and what's worse, the value we were getting from those expenditures likely greatly exceeds what we were paying for them. $500bn/yr would be about 15% of the annual budget. That number doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        2% of US GDP is 500 billion. I don't know what you're confused about. I'm taking numbers linked from the IMF so perhaps you know better? Also it's obviously not a 2% increase over 45 years, it's a nearly 6% increase, so not sure if numbers are your strong suit here. At least you did admit I was correct though, so I don't know what you're really continuing to try argue about. What I wrote originally stands.
        kelnos 2y ago
        I think GP misread what you were saying, and thought you were asserting that DOGE had cut $500B/yr of spending. (I sympathize; I read it that way myself at first, but realized what you actually meant during a confused re-read.)
  - Izkata 2y ago
    On the graph they shared earlier, 2020 is 44.82%, exactly on the 1960 - 1992 trendline. The 2022 and 2009 dropoffs coincide with major disruptions (don't know about the late-90s one), which almost seems to hint that's the value we should be looking at: +10.57% in 20 years.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  2% over 40 years is too small to back up the claim that it is "rising steadily" in any meaningful way.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    It's risen almost 6% over 40 years, and you're wrong it's not too small to claim that it's rising.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. It's funny that you latched onto the mention of the year 1980, because if you used 1982 (or 1983, 1984, 1985...) you'd see that it has gone down. The most recent measurement is lower than it was in the years around 1990, and the measurements before covid hit were also lower than those years. And I just realized. If you actually want to go back 40 years from the most recent data point, the year to use is... 1982.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        > Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. It really is. > It's funny that you latched onto the mention of the year 1980, Excuse me, I didn't latch onto 1980, crazygringgo nominated that date. > because if you used 1982 (or 1983, 1984, 1985...) you'd see that it has gone down. Sure unless you choose a different end point, right? > The most recent measurement is lower than it was in the years around 1990, and the measurements before covid hit were also lower than those years. A linear regression from 1990 to 2022 has it trending upward too.
        lkbm 2y ago
        > > Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that. > It really is. It was dropping for most of the 1990s, and most of the 2010s. So it's been rising steadily over the past 45 years...except for about two decades of that time? This isn't what most people call a steady rise.

jquery 2y ago

There’s no reason we have to be spending so much on healthcare. I’m convinced if Joe Lieberman didn’t block the public option in 2009, or if the Democrats had a spine and actually bypassed the filibuster to make sure the bill was as good as it could be, we’d have universal health care today. Instead, we decided to bail out insurance companies, to the benefit of nobody but insurance companies. We still could have single payer, but that’s not going to happen with the current group in charge.

starspangled 2y ago
Right. Healthcare expenditure just looks incredibly wasteful. Even if it is (as its defenders would say) buying more for the money, it just seems to be costing way too much when you look at others. And it's not as though those other developed countries' healthcare systems are paragons of efficiency themselves. That people are so flabbergasted and astounded that voters should be concerned by government spending and waste is actually the incredible thing to me.