# Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, on How to Pay for Medicare for All **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 3, 2018, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514 "2018-12-03T18:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Dacien](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dacien/32/5663_2.png) [@Dacien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dacien)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/381 "2019-01-09T02:35:14Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Yeah, your last answer was hilariously wrong. > > So you are now saying that healthcare costs will decline by 3 trillion dollars under a “Medicare for all” plan, but that’s bad because money is the root of all evil, and the less that people have of it the closer they are to god? It wasn’t hilariously wrong. In our long discussion I had mixed up _federal spending_ with _overall spending_. It’s absolutely correct, although I wish I could edit it to demonstrate that it’s $1.1 trillion multiplied by ten years. The rest of your post here I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/382 "2019-01-09T02:40:43Z")
Ok, a couple of things that jumped out at me as sleight-of-hand in the article **Dacien** posted: > [@](#): > > And when assessing the needed tax revenues, a green-energy initiative costing $7–$10 trillion over the decade should be examined in the context of $42 trillion in additional Democratic-socialist proposals that include single-payer health care ($32 trillion), a federal jobs guarantee ($6.8 trillion), student-loan forgiveness ($1.4 trillion), free public college ($800 billion), infrastructure ($1 trillion), family leave ($270 billion), and Social Security expansion ($188 billion). > > That 21 percent of GDP cost would double federal spending. And that does not even account for a baseline budget deficit rising to 7 percent of GDP over the decade — bringing the total budget gap to 28 percent of GDP. Let’s assume the numbers are correct for now. What is glaringly omitted are the _credits_ associated with these outlays. If single-payer costs $32T, there is an associated big-picture credit of $34T. Free public college will make the country more competitive long-term and surely increase GNP compared to leaving the population uneducated. Infrastructure spending creates jobs and stimulates the economy without there really being a viable alternative. What do we do, let everything fall apart? Really? I will punt on the others regarding whether they bring more benefits than they cost. But the nub is: it is dishonest to present these proposals as nothing but a list of costs. You also have to weigh the benefits. > [@](#): > > And like its counterpart in Europe, the American middle class would have to fund socialism because it earns most of the national income. The top-earning 5 percent of families and pass-through businesses currently account for 30 percent of all income. That means that 70 percent of this tax base comes from those outside the top 5 percent. Furthermore, that top 5 percent already pays 42 percent of all federal taxes, including 61 percent of all federal income taxes, which leaves less room for additional taxes. This bit seems like a misunderstanding. What is omitted is by what a vast degree the top 5% out-earn the average worker. _Of course_ it is appropriate that they shoulder a larger share of the tax burden. Why would it be any other way? Total red herring. And the comment about leaving ‘less room’ for additional taxes is just daft. That’s not how it works. I think it is silly to treat taxing the middle class to pay for these programs as a third rail. If it is designed such that the middle and lower classes benefit significantly more than they pay, it shouldn’t matter, if the obsfuscationists don’t win that is. Anyway, I’m in a hurry and wanted to add my 2 cents real quick. This is a very consequential decision that amounts to restructuring a large part of the national economy. Even without all the fearmongering and misdirection, it will be disruptive. The rich will pay more, some people will benefit more than others, some will take a hit, if only in the short run. I generally like the idea, but I don’t want to pretend the transition won’t be a big headache, not to mention what happens if it passes, the GOP once again regains control of government and does what it can to sabotage the ‘socialist’ programs their predecessors put in place. Yeah, let’s not pretend. But let’s not pretend the proposal is just a litany of expenses with no benefits. That’s bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/383 "2019-01-09T02:53:59Z")
> [@Dacien](#): > > It wasn’t hilariously wrong. In our long discussion I had mixed up _federal spending_ with _overall spending_. It’s absolutely correct, although I wish I could edit it to demonstrate that it’s $1.1 trillion multiplied by ten years. Yeah, mixing up federal spending with overall spending is a strangely common mistake among conservatives opposed to “Medicare for all” plans. So your own calculation now shows that Americans would overall save three trillion dollars by shifting to a Medicare for all plan, the only difference being who they made the premium check out to. So now you know it would save an enormous amount of money, and that all your previous arguments about the excessive cost of it were hilariously wrong. But that’s not good, because you don’t want facts getting in the way of your opinion, so go back to arguing that it’s too expensive and ignore this little conversation we had. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/384 "2019-01-09T03:27:18Z")
> [@Dacien](#): > > never mind that the top 20% of income earners pay 87% of all federal income tax Aww, poor babies: [https://www.thenation.com/article/dream-hoarders-class-inequality/](https://www.thenation.com/article/dream-hoarders-class-inequality/) > [@](#): > > This is the upper middle class, as he defines it: households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution, making about $117,000 or more a year. And they’ve done remarkably well over recent decades, even as the other four-fifths of American households have treaded water. Income for the top fifth grew by $4 trillion between 1979 and 2013, $1 trillion more than the increase for everyone else combined.[…] > > There has been very little increase in income inequality among the bottom 80 percent; all of it has been created by the richest fifth lifting off from the rest of us. For every dollar that went to the 1 percent over the last three decades, two went to the 19 percent just below them. The upper middle class may not be cashing in quite as much as the ultra-wealthy, but they are still vacuuming up a disproportionate share of income.[…] > > He also sees this class as not just defined by income, but by better health, education, occupational opportunities, and even different family structure. The upper middle class then uses these assets to hoard opportunities for itself, perpetuating an unfair system: Its members fight to preserve zoning laws that keep the good schools free of poorer children, find ways to pay their children’s way into elite colleges (he takes particular umbrage with legacy admissions), and trade favors to get their kids into unpaid internships. The rich skew the game so that American class structure stays entrenched. BTW, James Fallows would like a word with you about the “boiling frog” metaphor: [Boiled-frog - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/james-fallows/boiledfrog/) > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We can always reduce the deficit by cutting taxes on the rich some more, right? That Laffer Curve is the golden goose that keeps on giving! ---
**Author:** ![Dacien](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dacien/32/5663_2.png) [@Dacien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dacien)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/385 "2019-01-09T03:38:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Yeah, mixing up federal spending with overall spending is a strangely common mistake among conservatives opposed to “Medicare for all” plans. > > So your own calculation now shows that Americans would overall save three trillion dollars by shifting to a Medicare for all plan, the only difference being who they made the premium check out to. > > So now you know it would save an enormous amount of money, and that all your previous arguments about the excessive cost of it were hilariously wrong. But that’s not good, because you don’t want facts getting in the way of your opinion, so go back to arguing that it’s too expensive and ignore this little conversation we had. …Not at all. I feel like we’re talking at each other, not to each other. Like, the only way they made it cheaper on _overall_ spending was to make absurd assumptions, which have been laboriously detailed ITT, while at the same time _federal_ spending would balloon massively. We’re running circles around each other, so I’ll just let it drop. ---
**Author:** ![Dacien](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dacien/32/5663_2.png) [@Dacien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dacien)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/386 "2019-01-09T03:44:08Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > BTW, James Fallows would like a word with you about the “boiling frog” metaphor: [Boiled-frog - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/author/james-fallows/boiledfrog/) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/387 "2019-01-09T04:00:29Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > Would paying a premium or co-pay have changed the number of medical visits you made? Most people don’t like going to the doctor, but since you implied that out-of-pocket expenses might have changed your behavior, I thought maybe you made extra trips because you find it enjoyable. First off, a correction or clarification: I said my children had Medicaid/SCHIP all those years, not me. My eldest child was born in 2000, and his mother’s pregnancy was fully covered starting in 1999, and all four of my kids were covered until mid-2017. I personally was completely uninsured until 2016. Then I had a HDHP for a year, and for the past year and a half I have had a pretty nice plan through my wife’s employer (a school district), that the medical billing supervisor I was talking to about copays the other day expressed envy for (“wish I had only a hundred dollar deductible!”). In that year and a half, I have accessed FAR more health care than I did in the previous twenty years—including two sleep studies, which it turns out ain’t cheap! I use more because my health is important to me, not because it’s a jolly fun time to go to the doctor. Moving away from anecdata, the Oregon randomized study showed that giving uninsured people Medicaid did indeed significantly increase their use of health care. So it looks like it is your own anecdote that is atypical. > [@Airbeck](#): > > Why are so many Americans so selfish? Other countries have figured this out. Poor people being able to get health care does not hurt me, why are so many people horrified by that prospect? I mean “people with worse jobs then them now have health coverage”? Really? How is that a bad thing? How is Americans not dying of preventable causes a bad thing just because they are poor? I surely hope we are better than that, but you’re probably right. We don’t seem to be capable of caring for all of our citizens, like so many other countries do. I guess America is exceptional, but not in a good way. Well, I think you started that rant onto something: Americans are selfish. That’s kind of what the “Spirit of ‘76” was all about, and this was a particular problem in the South going back to the eighteenth century at least. But then you went astray with “Poor people being able to get health care does not hurt me”. If you added “…as much as it helps them”, then sure. But it doesn’t hurt you at all? Not so fast: that really depends on the design of the system. Cheesesteak comes closer to the truth with this comment, although it’s still a little skewed: > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The sad thing is that for every poor bastard up there who has to wait an extra 6 weeks for their knee replacement, there’s some poor bastard down here who’s getting used to limping instead of seeing a doctor. I’d say “an extra 6 weeks” is lowballing it, not only based on my sister’s experience but on the cites I posted earlier. But the overall point is fair: long wait times for everyone in Canada is better, from a utilitarian viewpoint, than short wait times for people with wealth or at least good insurance, and no care at all for people who don’t. But _it’s not better for the middle class._ If we make our system just like Canada’s, and wait times shoot up, pissed-off swing voters are not going to be mollified by “yeah, you have to wait a lot longer now, but poor people who live in a different part of town now have access to care, so isn’t it worth the tradeoff overall?” No matter how much you argue that it should be, and I might agree with you, this is not going to fly politically. Just a nonstarter, a sure route to a backlash that leaves us worse off in a variety of ways. So whatever changes we make, we have to make sure that middle class people get the same quality of care they are used to, and don’t get hit with a tax increase. That’s tricky! Which is another reason I support a more barebones universal entitlement, paid for entirely by tax hikes on the rich. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/388 "2019-01-09T06:47:56Z")
> [@Dacien](#): > > Like, the only way they made it cheaper on _overall_ spending was to make absurd assumptions, which have been laboriously detailed ITT, Nope. Despite what Captain Undergraduate tells you, the only absurd assumptions are those trotted out to exaggerate the costs of medicare-for-all once the paper’s authors realized it accidentally showed the opposite of what the Koch brothers paid them to show. Here’s what happened–the paper was written as proof that Medicare-for-all was more expensive than our current system. Then people actually read it and noticed that the author was misrepresenting the result and had actually showed that medicare-for-all was 2 trillion dollars cheaper than our current system. So there was a rush to invent trillions of dollars of additional costs (by people like Captain Undergraduate) to flip the result to what was initially paid for by the Koch brothers. “Here’s my paper showing that the cost of Medicare-for-all is an enormous 32 trillion dollars!” “But we’re actually paying 34 trillion dollars for healthcare. That’s a 2 trillion dollar savings” “Oh. Whoops. Wait. I just found 4 trillion dollars in costs that I ‘forgot about’ before. Please pay me?” ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/389 "2019-01-09T08:45:08Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The upshot: We need to do better by our citizens and make access to health care universal. But we need to stop saying Canada is the model to follow. It is not. How about France instead? You used Canada as an example of a system not working, so I pointed out it’s a far higher ranked system than the US. See also Japan, France, Australia (all spend under half what the US does) or the Netherlands, Germany or Austria (all spend a little over half what the US does) Switzerland is the outlier. It spends 80% what you do, but they really do want the best of the best. You can pick whichever model you like. They’ve all been proven to be cheaper to implement than the US, and they’re all ranked as better. But somehow, Shodan and the likes feel that the US is incapable of setting up something that many other countries have without it being vastly more expensive and less successful. Usually when people believe in American Exceptionalism it’s not in terms of American’s being exceptionally crap, but they appear to feel otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/390 "2019-01-09T08:56:35Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > See also Japan, France, Australia (all spend under half what the US does) or the Netherlands, Germany or Austria (all spend a little over half what the US does) See also South Korea. I spent almost a month in the hospital and my share was approximately US$1,500. I qualified for that because everyone (for the most part) is required to be enrolled in the National Health System, paying 4.5% of salary with the employer matching that amount. And medical care in South Korea is pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/391 "2019-01-09T10:25:34Z")
Look, we done fucked it up real good compared to so many other countries. But ironically you are underselling the value of years of groundwork in those countries to keep costs down. Our late start means we cannot just snap our fingers and instantly catch up. Baby steps. ---
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/392 "2019-01-09T15:17:09Z")
USA is too fucking stupid to be able to do healthcare as well as most other countries. Plus, it’s too hard and it might allow poor people to get something for free. It will be awesome once we repeal the ACA. I know there was supposed to be a “replace” after the repeal, but why bother? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/393 "2019-01-09T15:59:33Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Look, we done fucked it up real good compared to so many other countries. But ironically you are underselling the value of years of groundwork in those countries to keep costs down. Our late start means we cannot just snap our fingers and instantly catch up. Baby steps. By which, you mean we are behind on the math skills that would let us be able to tell that less is less, and more is more. We end up having claims like cutting taxes will decrease the deficit, or saving money on healthcare will increase the deficit from these poorly educated, and proud of it, posters. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/394 "2019-01-09T19:34:07Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Look, we done [FACT CHECK: Trump Speech On Border Security 'Crisis' Amid Shutdown : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wallfucked) it up real good compared to so many other countries. But ironically you are underselling the value of years of groundwork in those countries to keep costs down. Our late start means we cannot just snap our fingers and instantly catch up. Baby steps. You’re already paying 2/3 of your healthcare bill via taxes\*. All you have to do is setup a suitable legal framework for how it’s spent (and you can copy that from any of a dozen nations) and you’re there. There’s no excuse for the level of stupid America demonstrates with regards to healthcare. You are literally spending far more, to get far less, just to make sure that poor people get as little as possible. \*[The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880216/) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/395 "2019-01-09T20:40:01Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Shodan, why is America so hapless? Why are we unable to do something that has already been done to great success in many other countries. I’m not so sure the US is being called to do something that was done successfully in many other countries. It’s not just that we are supposed to implement UHC. We are supposed to cut spending by 25-40%. Can you think of a country that has done that? Please understand what I am saying. I am not asking what other countries have UHC, nor what UHC costs in those countries. Which of those countries implemented cuts in health care spending at the same level? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/396 "2019-01-09T20:52:52Z")
Compared to what? Most of the civilized world implemented their systems generations ago (and anyone who would propose repealing them would be considered loony). Only the US is faced with cost/benefit analysis at all, and then only as a foot-dragging measure. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/397 "2019-01-09T20:55:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I’m not so sure the US is being called to do something that was done successfully in many other countries. > > It’s not just that we are supposed to implement UHC. We are supposed to cut spending by 25-40%. Can you think of a country that has done that? > > Please understand what I am saying. I am not asking what other countries have UHC, nor what UHC costs in those countries. Which of those countries implemented cuts in health care spending at the same level? > > Regards, > Shodan So you are saying that it’s too hard to cut spending because our spending is so relatively high? Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of what any rational person would believe about any other situation? Like, if two people were discussing their cable bill, would you think the person who was spending $1,000 a month would have a harder or an easier time cutting their spending than the person spending $50 a month? We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country of which I am aware (for worse outcomes), and you think that means it’ll be harder to cut costs? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/398 "2019-01-09T20:57:28Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Look, we done fucked it up real good compared to so many other countries. But ironically you are underselling the value of years of groundwork in those countries to keep costs down. Our late start means we cannot just snap our fingers and instantly catch up. Baby steps. So … You’re appointed legislative healthcare czar for the {you-pick-it} Party. What’s your plan? What are the baby steps for the first few years? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/399 "2019-01-09T21:20:50Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > So you are saying that it’s too hard to cut spending because our spending is so relatively high? Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of what any rational person would believe about any other situation? > > Like, if two people were discussing their cable bill, would you think the person who was spending $1,000 a month would have a harder or an easier time cutting their spending than the person spending $50 a month? > > We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country of which I am aware (for worse outcomes), and you think that means it’ll be harder to cut costs? I am asking if there is any other country who has cut healthcare spending by as much as the US is being expected to do. It was asserted that many other countries have done this - which ones? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514/400 "2019-01-09T21:29:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am asking if there is any other country who has cut healthcare spending by as much as the US is being expected to do. It was asserted that many other countries have done this - which ones? > > Regards, > Shodan Well, question for you. If it is in fact the case that e.g. Canada spends half as much as the US on healthcare on a per-capita basis (this is in fact a fact), would you consider this as Canada reducing their healthcare costs by half relative to the US? Like, back to our cable bill example. Suppose I get only HBO and pay $50 a month, and some other guy gets both HBO and Showtime and his cable bill is $100 a month. He says that he wants to get his cable bill down to $50 a month and I say “you could do what I do”. Would it be fair for him to say “I can’t follow your example because you’ve never had to cut your cable bill in half the way I need to”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ms-ocasio-cortez-on-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all/825514.md?page=21)