Re:What Did the U.S. Get for $2T in Afghanistan?
by Joeri on Monday December 09, 2019 @01:12PM
(#21744876)
Wow, US gdp is “only” 20T, so at 6T almost a third of the economy would be healthcare. Checking your link it seems the warren campaign is aiming for 5T, which is still a quarter. Already a fifth of the US economy is healthcare and that is absurdly higher than every other country, which typically don’t go over 10% of gdp.
Re:What Did the U.S. Get for $2T in Afghanistan?
by atombender on Monday December 09, 2019 @02:51PM
(#21745787)
In the UK, the NHS — which some people admittedly consider to be chronically underfunded — was about 7% of GDP [1] in 2018. Norway's is about 10.5% [2] (2016), and increasing by about 2% a year.
[1] https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/R143.pdf#page=20
[2] https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/statisti...
The plan Warren is suggesting which I think would closest fit the definition of "free health care for all" - though not perfectly [1] would be 59T over 10 years or 5.9T/year.
Note also that the way these programs are funded is very different [2]. Things in the "Mandatory" funding category like Social Security and Medicare aren't funded year to year, but are ongoing expenses that you have to change entitlement laws to make changes to, so they are incredibly hard to change.
The Department of Defense is funded out of the "Discretionary" category which can change from year to year and is based on a different process which is not subject to the same laws.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2019/11/1/20942587/elizabeth-warren-medi...
[2] https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/topics/federal-e...