“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.”

  • bennel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    $1.05 trillion is spent on Medicare and Medicaid and yet drug prices are soaring and healthcare costs for Americans are at an all time high.

    Meanwhile in Canada, in 2023 the federal government spent C$334 bn ($233bn USD) (source)

    And in the UK, the budget for healthcare is £201.9bn ($266bn USD) (source)

    Both Canada and the UK have free healthcare.

    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.

    The problem in the US isn’t that they’re spending money on social services. The US can solve its budget by regulating the out of control healthcare market. Other countries have done it, it’s clearly not impossible.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      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.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          30 minutes ago

          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.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          36 minutes 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).

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 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.