Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2018, 01:43 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, on How to Pay for Medicare for All

Let us all rejoice, because the lovely Ms. AOC has found $21 trillion under the mattress of the US military, so two-thirds of Medicare for All can be funded even before we start charging premiums. Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. This is the kind of fresh, outside reality the box thinking that we need in Congress.

Or else it is Ocasio-Cortez floundering in the depths of confident cluelessness, Part XXIII. It's hard to tell.

Regards,
Shodan
  #2  
Old 12-03-2018, 01:58 PM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 54
Socialismo O Muerte!
  #3  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:04 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
The 32 trillion estimate for medicare for all is over 10 years, that's the first reason for your confusion, and overall spending on healthcare would be about the same. The 21 trillion is from the years 1998 to 2015, so another comprehension error since none of these numbers has to do with a single fiscal year. Not a good look to make basic comprehension errors, one of which is spelled out in your own cite, when trying to criticize someone else's intelligence.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-cost-voxcare
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:08 PM.
  #4  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:05 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Let us all rejoice, because the lovely Ms. AOC has found $21 trillion under the mattress of the US military, so two-thirds of Medicare for All can be funded even before we start charging premiums. Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. This is the kind of fresh, outside reality the box thinking that we need in Congress.

Or else it is Ocasio-Cortez floundering in the depths of confident cluelessness, Part XXIII. It's hard to tell.

Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Almost as bad as the actual President of the United States retweeting clearly false information about how much illegal aliens get paid by the US Federal Government each year.
  #5  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:07 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
I think her major confusion stems from the fact that the 21b was counted multiple times in transactions, not a total. Either way, it's a hilariously huge number that she should have caught straight from the gate.

Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.

Last edited by Dacien; 12-03-2018 at 02:08 PM.
  #6  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:10 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
I think her major confusion stems from the fact that the 21b was counted multiple times in transactions, not a total. Either way, it's a hilariously huge number that she should have caught straight from the gate.

Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.
It also has nothing to do with a single year of the budget since both figures, the 32 trillion for medicare for all, and the 21 trillion mentioned, have nothing to do with one years budget. The OP is hilariously wrong considering he is trying to impugn someone else's intelligence and reading comprehension and he clearly didn't even understand his own cite.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:14 PM.
  #7  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:11 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,653
AOC was commenting on the magnitude of accounting errors within the Pentagon, not saying that there is actually $21T available to be redirected.
  #8  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:14 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Exactly, and it had nothing to do with one years budget either, so the entire OP is based on basic misunderstanding of his own cite.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #9  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:21 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
  #10  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:24 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,631
Sounds like the President also agrees with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that military spending is too high:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...880974849?s=19

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"
  #11  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:25 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
AOC was commenting on the magnitude of accounting errors within the Pentagon, not saying that there is actually $21T available to be redirected.
She actually did say that:

"That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. "

At the very least, she seems to think that an actual total of 21 billion existed and could have paid for 2/3 of Medicare for All.
  #12  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:25 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Exactly, and it had nothing to do with one years budget either, so the entire OP is based on basic misunderstanding of his own cite.
I suppose I could make a reference to his "confident cluelessness" remark in the OP...

...but I'm not going to.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #13  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:26 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
Dude the entire OP was discredited due to basic misunderstandings of his own cite. Her detractors remind me of haters of a certain other politician as well. Now that that politician is out of the spotlight they need to aim their ire at someone else.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-03-2018 at 02:29 PM.
  #14  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:30 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
She actually did say that:

"That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. "

At the very least, she seems to think that an actual total of 21 billion existed and could have paid for 2/3 of Medicare for All.
Psst - trillion.

She seems to be getting progressively more innumerate as time goes on. By the end of her first year in office it will be 100 zillion.

Regards,
Shodan
  #15  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:31 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Good for a chuckle. Of course, having a chuckle means we're "scared" of her, or something like that. But she just keeps spitting these howlers out.
There you go again with "keeps spitting these howlers out", a characterization that you can't back up. Go ahead: show me 10 of these "howlers" that Miss O-C "keeps spitting".
  #16  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:32 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Sorry, trillion. Got me there.
  #17  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:35 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Billion, trillion - it's all free money!

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:37 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Dude the entire OP was discredited due to basic misunderstandings of his own cite. Her detractors remind me of haters of a certain other politician as well. Now that that politician is out of the spotlight they need to aim their ire at someone else.
No, there's no discredit, it's quite clear she at best, played with some fuzzy math that she didn't have a full grasp of.
  #19  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:41 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Billion, trillion - it's all free money!

Regards,
Shodan
How hard is it really to add a few zeros to the next batch of bills to be printed? If socialism does take hold in the US how bad can zoo donkey stew be?
  #20  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:49 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real? Because they're dollars that have been counted multiple times. So no, we could not fund 2/3 of Medicare for All with an inflated number. It makes no sense. It forces her adherents to insert explanations to fill the gaps.

Which, I think she knows that. Ocasio supporters remind me of certain other politicians' supporters in that respect.
It's not real, that's the point. But there is something else here also - you seem to be indicating that counting something multiple times is inappropriate. But that's not right either. If a company has interfund transfers of $1.00 that is due to accounting error, then it makes sense to describe that as an error of $1. If that same transaction happens one trillion times back and forth between the same funds, it is accurate to say that accounting errors resulted in $1T of transactions erroneously. It's not an inappropriate double counting inflating the magnitude of the error. Now it could be clarified even further, but a problem that results in $1 of transactions a single time is much less severe than one that happens a trillion times.

There was never any indication that this was real dollars that could be used. A different way to phrase the same criticism would be something like, "the magnitude of the accounting errors are so large, that if they were actually real we could use that money to buy another country." It's a way to convey the ginormity of the accounting errors.

There's plenty to criticize AOC over. This is not one of those things.

Last edited by Bone; 12-03-2018 at 02:51 PM.
  #21  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:50 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
The entire budget of the Pentagon has only been 18 billion in the last 30 years, so how could this 21 billion be real?
That's not correct either.

The total amount of money spent on national defense from 1940 to 2018 is $18 trillion. Therefore, it's quite easy to project that $21 trillion is more than this country has spent on defense in its entire history. See table 3.1 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

But agreed that the issue here is counting money multiple times, like if you put a $20 bill in your pocket in the morning, but don't spend it, and put the same $20 bill on your nightstand before turning in, you have executed $40 in transactions.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-03-2018 at 02:50 PM.
  #22  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:55 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's not real, that's the point. But there is something else here also - you seem to be indicating that counting something multiple times is inappropriate. But that's not right either. If a company has interfund transfers of $1.00 that is due to accounting error, then it makes sense to describe that as an error of $1. If that same transaction happens one trillion times back and forth between the same funds, it is accurate to say that accounting errors resulted in $1T of transactions erroneously. It's not an inappropriate double counting inflating the magnitude of the error. Now it could be clarified even further, but a problem that results in $1 of transactions a single time is much less severe than one that happens a trillion times.
Agreed.

Quote:
There was never any indication that this was real dollars that could be used.
Disagreed. She wrote: "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon."

When someone writes that something "could have been funded already" then it's an open-and-shut case that she thought the $21 trillion has purchasing power, and is not simply a abstract measurement that happens to use a dollar sign.
  #23  
Old 12-03-2018, 02:57 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Almost as bad as the actual President of the United States retweeting clearly false information about how much illegal aliens get paid by the US Federal Government each year.
It's really not almost as bad. It's not even close.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #24  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:05 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
No, there's no discredit, it's quite clear she at best, played with some fuzzy math that she didn't have a full grasp of.
Come on, the entire OP was based on BS and failure to even read his own cite. He was talking about yearly budgets and mocking her for it when he was totally wrong about his own cite! Where in his own cite did it say anything about 32 or 21 trillion in a single year.

Just because it fit your narrative that AOC is an airhead it doesn't make it valid. You claim that you are not afraid of her, but your obession is very telling. Have you made any remarks about any other freshman representatives? Even one? You have a singular focus, but I'm sure you'll just say that she's making you focus on her or something like that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #25  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:08 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Sorry, trillion. Got me there.
No worries, as long as you use this as a learning opportunity, and don't criticize people for making far less egregious math errors than you just made, we're all cool!
  #26  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:08 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,705
I think everyone (left and right wing) has a tendency to have a double standard of fiscal largesse for spending they like, and fiscal restraint for spending they don't like. Think the husband who spends hundreds of dollars on fishing gear but flips out if his wife buys a $95 dress.

But I'm reminded of the quote from the movie Independence Day where the president asks how these secret alien UFO programs are paid for and someone comments, "You don't think the government really spends $600 on a hammer, do you?" Is this fraud, waste, or also black-budget stuff?
  #27  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:10 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Disagreed. She wrote: "$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.”

$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon."

When someone writes that something "could have been funded already" then it's an open-and-shut case that she thought the $21 trillion has purchasing power, and is not simply a abstract measurement that happens to use a dollar sign.
It seems more like a rhetorical device, like my example above with buying a country. YMMV. I guess I read it that way because that makes much more sense to me.
  #28  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It's really not almost as bad. It's not even close.


I've been looking for any posts where certain posters called out the President for retweeting ridiculously incorrect information about money and illegal immigrants. Surprise, surprise, not much was found.

I'm not surprised.

Last edited by manson1972; 12-03-2018 at 03:17 PM.
  #29  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:27 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Perhaps they knew it was just a rhetorical device.

Regards,
Shodan
  #30  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:28 PM
Railer13 Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post


I've been looking for any posts where certain posters called out the President for retweeting ridiculously incorrect information about money and illegal immigrants. Surprise, surprise, not much was found.

I'm not surprised.
Well, there was this one a few days ago:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...postcount=5418

I'm surprised you didn't find it, because you had two immediate responses to that post.
  #31  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:34 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
No worries, as long as you use this as a learning opportunity, and don't criticize people for making far less egregious math errors than you just made, we're all cool!
Funnily enough, I'd forgive Cortez for a slip up like that, saying blillion when she might have meant trillion. If the numbers were otherwise accurate, then it would be quite clear it was misspeak.

But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.

Last edited by Dacien; 12-03-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #32  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:34 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
Well, there was this one a few days ago:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...postcount=5418

I'm surprised you didn't find it, because you had two immediate responses to that post.

He's not a "certain poster"

Last edited by manson1972; 12-03-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #33  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:39 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.
You mean like the OP, that you've gleefully jumped on board with because it seemed to fit your preconceived narrative, even though it demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the issue, and even of his own cite? I don't see why you are clinging so hard to be on team OP when he completely faceplanted on reading and understanding his own cite. I'd be embarrased at this point, but that's me.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #34  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:54 PM
Monocracy Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Come on, the entire OP was based on BS and failure to even read his own cite. He was talking about yearly budgets and mocking her for it when he was totally wrong about his own cite! Where in his own cite did it say anything about 32 or 21 trillion in a single year.
The OP never mentioned 21 trillion in a single year. He asked how do get $21T from a $700B annual budget? I think he understands his cite just fine.
  #35  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:55 PM
Modesty Blaise Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
Funnily enough, I'd forgive Cortez for a slip up like that, saying blillion when she might have meant trillion. If the numbers were otherwise accurate, then it would be quite clear it was misspeak.

But gaffes that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue being talked about? That's cause for concern. Or at the very least, a chuckle.
Then you must be really concerned about Trump's misunderstanding of every issue, every day, all day.

Or you must be constantly rolling on the floor laughing. Right?
  #36  
Old 12-03-2018, 03:55 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,916
Then by all means explain the issue. How does the Pentagon pay for two-thirds of Medicare for All, which is $21 trillion, on a yearly budget of almost $700 billion? Show your work.

I believe the $32 trillion is over ten years. OK, 10*700 billion - X = 21 trillion. Solve for X.

AOC thinks she can do it. I am doubtful.

Regards,
Shodan
  #37  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:05 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems more like a rhetorical device, like my example above with buying a country. YMMV. I guess I read it that way because that makes much more sense to me.
There's an underlying issue of "we could afford nice things if we wanted to," but reading her tweet, it is just wrong on the face of it.

Now, she could be angling for the Democratic contender to be "taken seriously but not literally," which if that is her intention, she ends up in rather awful company.
  #38  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:09 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 35,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then by all means explain the issue. How does the Pentagon pay for two-thirds of Medicare for All, which is $21 trillion, on a yearly budget of almost $700 billion? Show your work.

I believe the $32 trillion is over ten years. OK, 10*700 billion - X = 21 trillion. Solve for X.

AOC thinks she can do it. I am doubtful.

Regards,
Shodan
Same way Trump claimed Medicare could save 300 billion a year if it was allowed to negotiate on drug prices.
Quote:
Why would these numbers be so much lower than Trump’s estimate? Well, for one thing, total spending in Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) in 2014 was $78 billion. So Trump, in effect, is claiming to save $300 billion a year on a $78 billion program. That’s like turning water into wine.
  #39  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:11 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Yeah, Trump's even worse, that's understood.

But on topic, I for one look forward to Ocasio's next beclowning.
  #40  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:29 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Sounds like the President also agrees with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez that military spending is too high:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...880974849?s=19

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"
This would be amazing if true.
  #41  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:29 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,913
I look forward to the obsessive, bloated reactionaries making fools of themselves over one U.S. representative. If they could just teach little missy a lesson...
  #42  
Old 12-03-2018, 04:54 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
I look forward to the obsessive, bloated reactionaries making fools of themselves over one U.S. representative. If they could just teach little missy a lesson...
There are loads of Republican congressmen who say stupid shit all the time that gets ridiculed by Dems; not sure why Republicans can't have their own punching bag who says something dumb and gets called on it.
  #43  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:09 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Setting aside minor quibbles like the fact that we haven't spent $21 trillion on the military in total since the founding of the Republic and that her economic education did not seem to include anything about basic bookkeeping.

She seems somehow to believe that we can squeeze $21 trillion out of a total yearly budget of almost $700 billion. n
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That's not correct either.

The total amount of money spent on national defense from 1940 to 2018 is $18 trillion. Therefore, it's quite easy to project that $21 trillion is more than this country has spent on defense in its entire history. See table 3.1 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/
I do not quite follow this. A yearly budget of 700 billion $ is 0.7 trillion $. It seems that at this rate the US would have spent 21 trillion over 30 years. Now admittedly 700 billion sounds a bit high, I've a general feel for it around 500 billion. But I do believe it is down these days. Is this a "not adjusting for PP changes" thing?
  #44  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:23 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
I do not quite follow this. A yearly budget of 700 billion $ is 0.7 trillion $. It seems that at this rate the US would have spent 21 trillion over 30 years. Now admittedly 700 billion sounds a bit high, I've a general feel for it around 500 billion. But I do believe it is down these days. Is this a "not adjusting for PP changes" thing?
Defense spending today is far higher than before. At the time of 9/11, it was only around $300 billion, I think, not adjusting for inflation. Even in the Reagan era it was below $300 billion.
  #45  
Old 12-03-2018, 05:28 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,059
The notion that US military spending is bigger than US healthcare spending is actually one I've run across several times on forums and social media. It seems to be a natural fit to the narrative that destruction is prioritized by the establishment over social spending. A lot of people simply don't seem to grok how large US healthcare spending is.

I am assuming the 21 T number is over 10 years. It sounds roughly accurate that way. Which does mean that the statement from Vox "That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon." is, strictly speaking, accurate.

Current Medicare spending is 0,7 T, with current military spending being 0,7 T that is 1,4 T or 66 % of Medicare for all.

The catch is that to do this, the entire military would have to be decommissioned and shut down, which is very far from being any kind of good thing. But yes, you could get up to 66 % that way.
  #46  
Old 12-03-2018, 06:08 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,059
Anyway, thinking about it, 2.1T per year for medicare for all, that seems high. Just back of the envelope thoughts, Medicare currently costs 0.7T. But the US system is excellent at sluicing the less profitable patients over to the public purse, and over-65s are about four times as expensive as the rest of the population. Now, Medicare currently covers about 15 % of the population, the most expensive 15 %.

So we'd expect medicare for all to cost 2.25 times what the current system does. 1.6T, just about half of current health care total costs. I don't think its coincidence that its pretty much the same as comparable nations spend on healthcare, adjusted for population. Same economic laws for everyone.
  #47  
Old 12-03-2018, 06:32 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 97
Oh and by the way, Charles C.W. Cooke detailed some factors that were baked in to the cost estimate in order to reach the $32 trillion price tag over ten years:
  • Force every doctor and hospital in America to accept Medicare reimbursement rates for all patients — these are 40 percent lower than the rates paid by private insurance — while assuming that this would have absolutely no effect on their capacity or willingness to provide services
  • Raise taxes by 10 percent of GDP
  • Explain to the 150 million people with private insurance that the rules have been changed so dramatically that (a) they can no longer keep their plans, and (b) henceforth, tens of millions among them will be paying more in taxes than they were previously paying in both premiums and out-of-pocket costs

In short, things that will never happen for $32 trillion, Alex.
  #48  
Old 12-03-2018, 06:57 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then by all means explain the issue. How does the Pentagon pay for two-thirds of Medicare for All, which is $21 trillion, on a yearly budget of almost $700 billion? Show your work.

I believe the $32 trillion is over ten years. OK, 10*700 billion - X = 21 trillion. Solve for X.

AOC thinks she can do it. I am doubtful.

Regards,
Shodan
They probably can't, but that 32 trillion figure is misleading too.

Roughly 60% of medical bills are paid by the public sector in the US. Around 20% are paid by the insurance industry, and about 20% are paid by individuals out of pocket.

Keep the 60% paid by the public sector (keep the taxes and funding).

Of the remaining 40%, since medicare for all is cheaper that may only be 30% (could be lower, especially over time. A study on Vermont found if they had adopted single payer, their health system would've been 25% cheaper after 10 years).

Anyway, that means we have to pay for 30% of our health care system ($900 billion a year) in a medicare for all system.

If you assume about 200-300 billion is still paid out of pocket (which is far less than is paid out of pocket now), that leaves 600-700 billion a year.

That can be funded with a mix of payroll taxes and progressive taxes on the wealthy. I've seen various figures, but a 6-8% payroll tax split between employer and employee combined with some new taxes on the rich should fund it.

Easy peasy.

But no, the military budget can't cover it unless we convert the entire military budget to medicare funding.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 12-03-2018 at 06:59 PM.
  #49  
Old 12-03-2018, 07:04 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
In short, things that will never happen for $32 trillion, Alex.
To that point, it often seems that the case against universal health care boils down to: “It is cheaper to let poor and middle class people die than to have them see doctors.”
  #50  
Old 12-03-2018, 07:08 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Current Medicare spending is 0,7 T, with current military spending being 0,7 T that is 1,4 T or 66 % of Medicare for all.
And almost NO money for the Ministry of Silly Walks!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017