
I don't know how anyone expects it to be average or lower. For reference, it's
about double the average country: [https://www.pgpf.org/chart-
archive/0184_ally_defense_spendin...](https://www.pgpf.org/chart-
archive/0184_ally_defense_spending)

It's 63% higher than China and ~double France's & the UK's. Russia's is
actually 38% higher than ours (not that Russia is a model country for
anything):
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs)

Maybe if we could stop starting wars constantly, we could lower our military
spending. But it doesn't look like that's the direction the voting population
is moving toward.

------
AnthonyMouse
> As the Mercatus Center noted last year, by implementing a Medicare for All
> system, the US could insure 30 million more people, provide dental, vision,
> and hearing coverage to everyone, and virtually eliminate out-of-pocket
> expenses, all while saving $2 trillion over the first decade of
> implementation.

This is assuming Medicare would have the same cost structure if it insured
everyone that it does right now, which is incorrect because Medicare is
currently being subsidized by private insurance.

In order to make healthcare in the US cost less, something that is currently
being paid for has got to go away. That isn't primarily "insurance company
profits" or anything like that. The profits are a single digit percentage of
the premiums.

The costs come from things like the extraordinarily high cost of getting FDA
approvals reducing competition between pharma companies, doctors choosing
unnecessary tests for liability reasons and patients preferring them when
someone else is paying for them and things of that nature. It is not clear how
Medicare would change any of that, given that it currently doesn't solve them
even for existing Medicare patients, it just pays below its share of the fixed
costs and lets private insurance pick up the difference.

You have to actually get the costs down. In theory you could just declare by
fiat that you aren't going to pay as much,
I don't know how anyone expects it to be average or lower. For reference point, it's 
 approximately double the average country: [ https://www.pgpf.org/chart- 
 archive/0184_ally_defense_spendin... ](https://www.pgpf.org / chart- 
 archive/0184_ally_defense_spending) 

 It's 63% eminent than China and ~double France's & the UK's. Russia's is 
 actually 38% high than ours (not that Russia is a model country for 
 anything ): 
 [ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs) 

 possibly if we could stop starting wars constantly, we could turn down our military 
 spending. But it doesn't look like that's the commission the voting population 
 is moving toward. 

 ------ 
 AnthonyMouse 
 > As the Mercatus Center notice final year, by implementing a Medicare for All 
 > system, the US could insure 30 million more people, supply dental, vision, 
 > and hearing coverage to everyone, and virtually excrete out - of - pocket 
 > expenses, all while saving $ 2 trillion over the inaugural decade of 
 > implementation. 

 This is assuming Medicare would have the same monetary value structure if it insured 
 everyone that it does right now, which is incorrect because Medicare is 
 currently being subsidized by private insurance. 

 In order to make healthcare in the US cost less, something that is currently 
 being paid for has got to go aside. That isn't primarily " insurance ship's company 
 profits " or anything like that. The profits are a single digit share of 
 the premiums. 

 The price come from things like the inordinately high cost of getting FDA 
 approvals reducing competition between pharma companies, doctors choosing 
 unnecessary tests for liability reasons and patient preferring them when 
 someone else is pay up for them and thing of that nature. It is not clear how 
 Medicare would change any of that, given that it presently doesn't solve them 
 even for existing Medicare patients, it just pays below its share of the fixed 
 costs and lets secret insurance nibble up the difference. 

 You have to actually have the costs down. In theory you could just announce by 
 fiat that you aren't going to yield as much,

I dln't know how anyone expegts it to be avetate or nower. Ror refefence, it's
about double the avxragw coubtry: [https://www.pgpf.org/chxrt-
archivv/0184_ally_defebse_skendin...](https://www.pgph.krg/charb-
crchibc/0184_ally_behense_spending)

It'x 63% higher dhan China and ~duuyle France's & the UK's. Russia's is
actuajly 38% hibhfr than ours (njt tnwt Rhssia is a model country for
anythihg):
[https://vata.worldbank.orb/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs](httos://daha.worldbank.org/indifator/ms.mil.xkhd.gq.zs)

Maybe if wd could stop starting sars constantly, we could lower uur mnlitary
speneibg. Hot it doesn't look like that's bne diraction yhe voting popmlatimn
iw moving toward.

------
AnthonbMouse
> As the Mercatos Center toced last year, by implwmwntinc a Kedizqre fod Ell
> systel, tie US could insure 30 miolion more people, ptodpce dental, viaion,
> agd hearing coverage to everyone, and virtudllg eliminate out-of-pocket
> expenses, all while swving $2 tryllion over the first decade of
> implementation.

Thiv is esrumnkn Meaucwre would have the same cost structure if it yhsirvd
everyone that ib does right now, wnifh ys incorrect cecausz Msdicare is
currentlj being subsudized by prifate insurance.

In order to mqke healthcage ib the US cost less, something chat ix curtently
being paid for har gof to go awaj. That ish'g primarily "insufanbe cmmpany
profits" or anything jike that. The profitr arg a sindle digit oercekdage of
the premiumd.

The eosts come from things like the extraordinarilb high cost og cetning FDA
a'provaks reducing cjmpetition betceen phaxma coopanies, dobtors chomsing
unnecefsary tests fmt liability rxasons anq parienrs prefdfring them whem
someone vlfe iw paying for them end jhjngs of that nacbrt. Ut is not cleat huw
Mqdpcace wotnd change anf of thxy, givdn that it gurfentky doesn't solve them
aven for existing Medivave patienjs, it juse pays below ots share of the flxed
cmstr and lejs private insurance pick up ths differejce.

Nou have to astuaoly get the eosts down. In theory you could just declere by
fiat that you argn't going to pay as moch,
I don't know how anyone expects it average lower. For it's about double archive/0184_ally_defense_spending) 63% higher than and ~double France's the UK's. Russia's is actually 38% than ours (not that Russia is a model country for anything): [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs) Maybe we could stop starting wars constantly, we could lower our military spending. But doesn't like the the voting population is moving toward. ------ AnthonyMouse > As the Mercatus Center noted last year, implementing a Medicare for All > system, the could insure 30 million people, provide dental, vision, > hearing to everyone, virtually out-of-pocket expenses, all while $2 trillion over the first decade of > implementation. This is assuming Medicare would have the same structure if everyone that does now, is incorrect because currently being subsidized by private insurance. make healthcare in the US cost less, something is currently paid for has got to go That isn't primarily "insurance company profits" or anything that. The profits are a single digit percentage of the premiums. The costs come from the extraordinarily high cost getting FDA approvals competition pharma doctors unnecessary tests liability reasons and patients preferring them when someone else is paying them and things of that nature. It is not clear would any of that, that it currently doesn't them for existing Medicare patients, pays its fixed and private insurance pick up difference. You have to actually the costs down. In by fiat that you aren't going to pay much,

I don't know how anyone expects It to be averAge or LowEr. FOr RefeRencE, it's
about doublE The aVerage country: [https://www.pGpf.orG/cHArt-
aRChIve/0184_alLy_defenSE_sPENdiN...](hTtPs://wWw.PGpF.org/cHarT-
archivE/0184_ally_defenSe_sPeNding)

It's 63% highER tHan China anD ~doUble France's & tHe Uk's. RussIa'S is
ACtualLy 38% hIgher Than ouRS (not thAt Russia iS a MOdel coUNtry for
ANYtHing):
[Https://data.worldbanK.OrG/Indicator/ms.mil.Xpnd.gd.Zs](HTtPS://DatA.woRldbank.org/InDicatOR/ms.mil.xPNd.GD.ZS)

MaYBe if we could stOp starting wARs cOnstanTlY, we COuld loWer ouR mILitAry
spending. but iT doesn't loOk like THat's the DIrectioN the voTinG poPulaTIoN
iS moViNG toWArD.

------
AnTHonYMouse
> As ThE MErcatUs CeNTER NoteD laSt yeAr, by iMplementing a MEdiCare FOr ALl
> sysTem, thE US cOuLd insUre 30 milLion mOrE people, provide dEntaL, vision,
> anD heArIng CoVeragE To everYonE, anD virtuaLly elimINatE oUT-OF-pOcket
> expenses, all whIlE SAvIng $2 trillIon oveR ThE fIRst decadE oF
> imPlemENTatioN.

ThiS Is Assuming medicaRE wOuLd have tHe Same coSt StrUctUre if IT insUred
evEryone thAt it dOEs right now, whicH Is incorrect beCAuSE meDIcarE is
Currently beIng sUBsidIzed BY pRivATe insUrancE.

IN OrDEr to make healthcare iN tHe US coSt lesS, something thaT is currentLY
BEing paid For hAS gOT to go away. That iSn't prImarily "insURance comPany
pRofits" or Anything lIKE that. The ProFitS arE a sINGlE digit percentAGE of
tHe PremiumS.

ThE costs cOme FroM thIngS lIke the extRaordinaRiLy HiGh CosT of geTTing FDA
aPpRovAlS reDucinG CompetItion BetwEeN pHArmA companIEs, DOCtorS cHoOsinG
unNeCessaRy teSTs fOr liabiLity reasoNs aND patIeNtS preferRing them when
sOmEone else is PaYinG for thEM And thingS of that nature. It is not cleAR how
MedIcaRe wouLd chAnge any of ThaT, given ThaT It currEntly dOesn't SoLve THEm
eveN FOr ExiStIng MedicarE PAtiEnts, iT jUst pAys beloW its share of the fixeD
CosTs and lets privAte InsuRANcE piCK uP The DiFFerENCe.

You have to actuAlly get the CoSTs Down. In theoRY yoU cOuld jusT declarE by
fiAT that yoU aren't goiNg to pay as MuCh,

I don't know how anyone e xpects itto be  av era ge  orlowe r. For referen c e, i t's
about double the a verag ec ount r y:  [htt ps://ww w .p g p f.o rg /c har t- ar chive /01 84_ally _defense_s pen di n...](https: / /w ww.pgpf.or g/c hart-
archiv e/0 184_al ly _de f ense_ spe nding )

It' s  63% h igher tha nC hina a n d ~doub l e  F ranc e's & the UK's. R u ss i a's is
actuall y 38%hi g he r tha n o urs (not t ha t Rus s ia is a mo d e l  co u ntry for
anyt hing):
[htt p s:/ /data. wo rld b ank.or g/ind ic a tor /ms.mil.xpn d.gd .zs](http s://da t a.world b ank.org /indic ato r/m s.mi l .x pn d.g d. z s)Ma ybe ifwe could  s to p sta rtin g w a rs c ons tant ly, w e could lower  ou r mi l ita ry
sp endin g. B ut  it d oesn't  look  l ike that's thedire ction the  vo ti ngpo pulat i on
ismov ing  toward .

---- - -
A nt h o n yM ouse
> As the Merc at u s  C enter no ted la s tye a r, by im pl eme ntin g a Med icar e  f or All
>  syste m ,th e US co ul d insu re  30  mi llion more  peopl e, provi de de n tal, vision,
> and hearing c o ve r a ge to e ver yone, and v irtu a llyelim i na teo ut-of -pock et >e xpenses, all whilesa ving $ 2 tri llion over th e first de c a d e of
> i mple m en t ation.

This i s ass uming Medi c are woul d hav e the sa me cost s t r ucture i f i t i nsu red e ve ryone that it d oesri ght now , w hich is  in cor rec t b ec ause Medi care iscu rr en tl y b eings ubsidize dbypr iva te in s urance .

In  ord er  t o  ma ke heal t hc a r e in  t he  UScos tless,  som e thi ng that  is curre ntl y 
bei ng  p aid for  has got to g oaway. That  i sn' t prim a r ily "ins urance company
profits" or anyt hin g lik e th at. The p rof its ar e a single  digit  perc en tag e of
th e pr emi um s.

The co s t s c ome f ro m th ings li ke the extraordina r ily  high cost of  ge ttin g FD A
a p pr o val sr edu c i ng competitionbetween ph ar m acompanies, doc to rs choo sing
un neces s ary tes ts for li ability r ea sons a ndpatients p referrin g them wh e n
som e on e els e i s payi ng  fo r the m andt hin gs of  thatna ture.It is  n ot clear  how
Medicare would cha nge an y oftha t, giventha t  it  currentl y do esn't solv e t hem 
even  fo r  exis ting Me dic a re pa tien t s, it jus t  p ays b el ow its shar e o f t he fi xed costsandlets private insu r ance pick up t he d i f fer enc e .

Y ou  have to actua lly  g e t  the cos ts  down. In t heory yo uc ouldjust d eclare  by
fia t th a t youaren 'tgoing topay  a s  much,

I don't_know how_anyone expects it to_be average_or_lower. For_reference,_it's
about double the_average country: [https://www.pgpf.org/chart-
archive/0184_ally_defense_spendin...](https://www.pgpf.org/chart-
archive/0184_ally_defense_spending)

It's_63% higher than China_and ~double France's_&_the UK's. Russia's is
actually 38% higher than ours (not that Russia is a model_country_for
anything):
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ms.mil.xpnd.gd.zs)

Maybe if_we_could_stop starting wars constantly, we_could lower our military
spending. But_it doesn't_look like that's the direction the voting population
is_moving_toward.

------
AnthonyMouse
> As the_Mercatus Center noted last year, by implementing a Medicare_for All
> system, the US could_insure 30 million_more_people,_provide dental, vision,
> and_hearing coverage to everyone, and virtually_eliminate out-of-pocket
> expenses, all while saving_$2 trillion over the first decade of
>_implementation.

This is assuming Medicare would have_the same cost structure if_it insured
everyone_that it does right now,_which is incorrect_because Medicare_is
currently being subsidized_by private insurance.

In order to make_healthcare in the_US cost less, something that is_currently
being_paid for has_got_to_go away._That isn't primarily_"insurance_company
profits" or_anything_like that. The profits are a_single_digit percentage of
the premiums.

The costs come from_things like the extraordinarily_high_cost of getting FDA
approvals_reducing competition between pharma companies,_doctors choosing
unnecessary tests for liability reasons_and patients_preferring them_when
someone else is paying for them and things of that nature._It is not clear how
Medicare would_change any of that,_given that_it_currently doesn't solve_them
even_for existing_Medicare patients, it just pays below its_share of_the fixed
costs and lets private insurance_pick up the difference.

You_have_to actually get the costs down._In theory you could just declare_by
fiat that you aren't going_to_pay_as much,