“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.”

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    With all respect for Senator Senators…

    While the US Defense budget is the largest its ever been in absolute dollars it’s also near its historical low in terms of percent of GDP.

    In terms of spending the Defense Budget is ABSOLUTELY DWARFED by Social Spending. Without hyperbole it’s not even fucking close.

    In 2023 the Defense Budget was 805 Billion USD, meanwhile Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security, and “Other” represented 3.8 TRILLION, nearly five times as much.

    The US already spends more than the entire GDP of many countries on Healthcare and citizen assistance. The problem here isn’t the DoD budget, it’s how were spending our money on the Social Services side.

    • bennel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days 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
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days 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
            4 days 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.

            • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days 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.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days 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
            ·
            5 days 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
              ·
              5 days 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.

              • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                i think we’re agreeing about the quoted statistics

                what i’m saying is that it doesn’t matter whether the government pays for medical costs or the individual pays for medical costs - those are all costs that the country puts towards medical care. if the individual didn’t have to pay them, they’d invest them into their life in other ways

                many people argue this stupid notion that the government doesn’t have the money to pay for healthcare, whilst ignoring the fact that the country as a whole does have the money to pay for healthcare - they’re just spending that money privately. if you redirect that private health insurance money to government, the money is there

        • Bacano@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days 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.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      yeah, I wonder how much of that social spending comes in the form of direct corporate subsidies.