this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
483 points (98.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2003 readers
1185 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"I think it's time to tell the military-industrial complex they cannot get everything they want," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It's time to pay attention to the needs of working families."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

Sure. I'm not arguing against UHC or trying to claim that nothing needs to be done. I'm just pointing out that the DoD budget wouldn't make a dent in this problem.

BTW you really shouldn't compare this based on absolute dollars.

Canada - 233 Billion spent on a population of 40 Million people means $5,850 per capita.

The UK - 266 Billion spent on a population of 69 Million people means $3,855 per capita.

The US - 1.05 Trillion (your number) spent on a of population of 346 Million people would be just $3,034 per capita.

So for about 1/3 of the cost of what the US government pays in healthcare, other governments are able to provide free healthcare to their people.

1/3rd the cost would be roughly 333,333 Billion and drop the per capita expense to right around $1,000. There's absolutely no possible way that math works.

Now if we were take the ENTIRE DoD budget, as in no military expenses at all, and stack it on top of the existing 1.05 Trillion (your number) that would give us 1.95 Trillion and a per capita expense of around $5,635. That's still not enough to reach Canada's level of spending.

The math isn't mathing here.

Again, I'm not arguing that something doesn't need to be done but no matter how you go at this the DoD budget isn't the problem and even using ALL of it wouldn't get the job done.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Not everyone uses Medicare or Medicaid. Not a fair comparison. Looks like 135 million are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS. So, about $7,777 per person.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/news-alert/cms-releases-latest-enrollment-figures-medicare-medicaid-and-childrens-health-insurance-program-chip

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Looks like 135 million are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS. So, about $7,777 per person.

Fair enough, so how does $7,777 per person end up at the claimed 1/3rd the cost?

Also if we extend that $7,777 per person cost to 340,000,000 people you get a total of roughly 2.65 Trillion dollars. So even 1.95 Trillion (Medicare/Medicaid/CHIPS + the entire DoD Budget) would still come up nearly a Trillion dollars short.

Again, the math doesn't work.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I didn't say it did. But trying to extend current costs to figure out the cost of covering everyone doesn't work either. Costs won't stay the same.

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 3 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Unless I'm missing something, you've calculated the Medicare/Medicaid spending against the entire US population when most Americans have private insurance (as of 2022). https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-281.html

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago

Unless I’m missing something, you’ve calculated the Medicare/Medicaid spending against the entire US population...

Yes, isn't that what Universal Healthcare would do? Most Americans would no longer have private insurance if UHC were enacted and the post I replied too claimed that Medicare/Medicaid budget would fund UHC (and at 1/3rd the cost).

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 0 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

yeah… it’s not like people who don’t use govt health services don’t get health services - those costs are still paid by “the country” wether it’s by the government or by its citizens

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago

It's not an apples to apples cost comparison if the costs for UK and Canada literally covers everyone and the US calculation covers 1/3 of the population.

[–] Bacano@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago

It doesn't matter what percentage of a budget is what. If a government is corrupt to the point of absurdity, the spending is largely ineffective.

The tax dollars were captured and the value of what theyre being used for is siphoned by middlemen (insurance in health care, middlemen inflating prices in the military) and as a result the prices in both examples are no longer attached to reality.