A Challenge

[Free Bird]

Find a way to rearrange the federal budget to bring in universal Medicare without raising taxes. In other words, cut away! I'll just stand back and look at your ideas.

[Middle-aged Europe]

[Antonio the Sixth]

[/thread]

[eric82oslo]

Exactly.

[afleitch]

That's over $2000 a year for every man, woman and child on defense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's over $2000 a year for every man, woman and child on defense.

Freedom isn't free!

[Rockefeller GOP]

Ironic that LBJ suggests that cut!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah, we could easily cut defense as noted.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

from the CBO:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*expected to increase as more people sign up

Employer-sponsored insurance deduction = about $250 billion

So that adds up to about $1.2 Trillion in current federal health spending.

Private health insurance premiums, I've seen estimates very roughly about $1 Trillion.   If you take the $250 billion in employer deductions, and $40 billion in exchange subsidies out of that, then you have about $710 in the private market that Medicare-for-all would have to make up.   But then figure that Medicaid recipients receive less in reimbursements to physicians than for Medicare, so there will be an increase if these people are moved to Medicaid, and that Medicare can cover more co-pay than many private insurance.

On the other hand, private insurance needs to make a profit, whereas Medicare would not, so that might bring down.

So, I'd guess a need for anywhere from $650-850 billion or so more in annual federal health spending, in order to do Medicare for All, which will increase each year, unless we figure out some major ways to cut health spending inflation.   And that is not counting the fact that Medicare is already going to be a major cause of deficits in the future without some either cuts in spending and/or tax increases, as it is, with just the elderly population.  This would be tough.   

I suppose taking military spending down to zero might be enough in the short term not to increase the deficit, but that is not a serious proposal.

We could take some out of defense, but before we cut the defense budget in any substantial fashion, we need to fundamentally rethink our role in the world as it has been for most of the past century, or else we will be trying to do the same things we have been doing, only without the resources to do it.

[PJ]

Yeah, Old Europe wins the thread. Another way to bring in revenue without raising taxes or cutting spending would be to close loopholes and cut down on tax evasion for the currently enforced tax rates.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The employer tax cut for providing health insurance would be a pretty good expenditure that could be eliminated.

[ElectionsGuy]

1. Cut military spending and stop being world's policeman.
2. Privatize social security, let people invest in private accounts.
3. Get rid of several unneeded federal departments (education, transportation, housing, energy, etc.)

Either one or a combination of the above works.

[Free Bird]

Just how much military spending should be slashed? I am assuming withdrawing foreign aid alone could do a huge part of it.

[ElectionsGuy]

Just how much military spending should be slashed? I am assuming withdrawing foreign aid alone could do a huge part of it.

All foreign aid and all the money for foreign bases, at least.

[Leinad]

And you hit the nail on the head. Thread won.

Our military spending is embarrassingly too high. Interventionist foreign policy does nothing but endanger lives of young Americans, make the Middle East even less stable, make them hate us (they don't call us "the Great Satan" because of McDonald's), all at the expense of the taxpayer.

It's flabbergasting how many so-called "fiscal conservatives" think it would send the world into chaos if we cut military spending just a little bit, when we're already spending, per capita, more than twice on the military than most countries.

Freedom isn't free!

Nope, but it's a lot cheaper than world-policing, which is what we're doing now.

If you think most of these wars we're getting into are necessary wars to protect freedom, I have a skiing resort to sell you in Iraq.

[Indy Texas]

Hawks/neo-cons often justify our high military spending by pointing out that the reason European countries can spend so little on defense is that they know we spend so much.

Which is incredibly stupid because you've basically admitted you have a free rider problem but want to ensure that everyone else keeps riding for free.

[Mr. Reactionary]

They don't have one for Medicare yet, but using this fun game from the CRFB, I managed to shore up social security while cutting the payroll tax rate.



Try yourself here: http://crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

And they have one for the entire federal budget as well, although no Medicare for all option: http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/#

[Likely Voter]

pointless exercise. Obviously if the government stepped in to replace all private insurance with Medicare for all it would have to raise the revenue to pay for it. Of course it would likely be much less in taxes than is currently being paid in premiums by individuals and businesses.

the only way to do it without the revenue would be to eliminate close to all discretionary spending and all defense spending. Which of course would be stupid.

[Mercenary]

How much do people pay for private insurance now?
Even if you increase taxes by the same amount it isn't a net increase in expenditures. Since profit is no longer a necessity, it should actually result in an overall net decrease.

But a couple things...

- Defense budget should be chopped in half. (Including ending foreign aid, abolishing the DHS and domestic spying, reducing the scope of the CIA, closing down most foreign bases, ending world policing, not funding projects even the pentagon deems unnecessary)
- Social security should be handled as defined contribution instead of defined benefit and that money should not ever be coupled with the general fund.

I also saw a bill proposed that would reward public employees who find ways of cost saving in the department they work in. I think that is a good idea. Too often departments will try to spend more than necessary so they get a better budget for the next year. In addition to this, as Rand Paul is an example, the expense budgets of Senators and congressmen is unnecessarily high. Granted this wouldn't make much of a dent, but every dollar matters.

[politicus]

Hawks/neo-cons often justify our high military spending by pointing out that the reason European countries can spend so little on defense is that they know we spend so much.

Which is incredibly stupid because you've basically admitted you have a free rider problem but want to ensure that everyone else keeps riding for free.

Yes, you get to be in control of Western defence, but you pay a very high price for it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Folks, foreign aid is like 1% of the budget or something. It's not the reason military spending is so insanely high.

Incidentally, some scholars of Welfare policy have argued that the US' very high military spending is so high because the military-industrial complex basically works as a welfare program, providing jobs and various benefits that alleviate poverty in some area, and compensate for the lack of social spending. Of course, this kind of spending is far less effective than it would be if the money was directly focused on actual welfare spending, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Incidentally, some scholars of Welfare policy have argued that the US' very high military spending is so high because the military-industrial complex basically works as a welfare program, providing jobs and various benefits that alleviate poverty in some area, and compensate for the lack of social spending. Of course, this kind of spending is far less effective than it would be if the money was directly focused on actual welfare spending, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at it.

This was one of the more interesting points that AggregateDemand used to make before his banning. Of course, being AggregateDemand, he thought that this was better than conventional welfare spending and accused leftists of hating the poor for opposing it.

[afleitch]

Incidentally, some scholars of Welfare policy have argued that the US' very high military spending is so high because the military-industrial complex basically works as a welfare program, providing jobs and various benefits that alleviate poverty in some area, and compensate for the lack of social spending. Of course, this kind of spending is far less effective than it would be if the money was directly focused on actual welfare spending, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at it.

This was one of the more interesting points that AggregateDemand used to make before his banning. Of course, being AggregateDemand, he thought that this was better than conventional welfare spending and accused leftists of hating the poor for opposing it.

Gang membership can in many ways be a welfare programme for the same reason. Which is all you need to know about the state of welfare in the USA.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Find a way to rearrange the federal budget to bring in universal Medicare without raising taxes. In other words, cut away! I'll just stand back and look at your ideas.

Cut military spending, and abolish corporate handouts and that wasteful D.C. school voucher program.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Folks, foreign aid is like 1% of the budget or something. It's not the reason military spending is so insanely high.

Incidentally, some scholars of Welfare policy have argued that the US' very high military spending is so high because the military-industrial complex basically works as a welfare program, providing jobs and various benefits that alleviate poverty in some area, and compensate for the lack of social spending. Of course, this kind of spending is far less effective than it would be if the money was directly focused on actual welfare spending, but it's certainly an interesting way to look at it.

It is certainly the government's most significant jobs program, and a significant contribution to the economy of many places in the US.  That doesn't mean it's an efficient or sensible way to go about this, but it's hard for any social welfare program to replace that.  Just providing benefits without the jobs and the sense of purpose (of being part of the nation's defense, or of an economy which supports it) doesn't do the same thing for people.