MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won't Say How She'll Pay for $40 Trillion Platform

CNN's Jake Tapper kept asking the socialist candidate where the money would come from. Eventually, he gave up.

Screenshot/CNN via YouTubeScreenshot/CNN via YouTubeDemocratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed socialist running to represent the 14th District in New York, insists that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing aren't "pie-in-the-sky" proposals. But when asked yesterday where the tens of trillions of dollars to pay for these programs would come from, she wouldn't provide an answer.

Ocasio-Cortez was appearing on CNN's State of the Union to discuss a variety of issues, from the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to the allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. When the conversation turned to her domestic policy ideas, CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.

Tapper got that figure by adding up cost estimates for some of her bigger ideas. According to a cost analysis in Vox, the main democratic socialist policies would actually cost roughly $42.5 trillion over the next decade. The biggest culprit is the single-payer health care plan (Medicare for All), which the Mercatus Center says would cost taxpayers $32 trillion.

Tapper then cited a July interview in which Ocasio-Cortez claimed that hiking the corporate tax rate would raise $2 trillion over the next decade. But what, Tapper asked, about "the other $38 trillion"?

Ocasio-Cortex responded by defending her most expensive proposal. Medicare for All "would save the American people a very large amount of money," she said. Then, she explained that "these systems are not just pie-in-the-sky," since they exist in other countries as well. "What we need to realize is that these investments are better and they are good for our future," she said.

The candidate went on to call her proposals "generational investments" and "really profound decisions about who we want to be as a nation." But as Tapper pointed out, she didn't answer his question. "You say it's not pie-in-the-sky, but $40 trillion is quite a bit of money. And the taxes that you talked about raising to pay for this, to pay for your agenda, only account for two [trillion]," he said.

Ocasio-Cortez again failed to provide a specific answer, instead arguing that current health care costs prevent people from spending money "in the private sector." The fact that millennials are hesitant to buy cars and houses "is a cost" that her proposals will seek to eliminate, she added.

Realizing she wasn't going to answer his question, Tapper gave up. "I'm assuming I'm not going to get an answer for the other $38 trillion," he said. "But we'll have you back and maybe we can go over that."

Ocasio-Cortez's refusal to explain where the money would come from isn't surprising, because the answer doesn't help her cause. She claims that raising taxes on just the super-wealthy will pay for her proposals, but as Reason's Christian Britischgi explained earlier this month, that's not true. Just look at Denmark's welfare state:

According to a 2015 Tax Foundation study, Denmark's top marginal income tax bracket of 60 percent kicks in for income earners making over 120 percent of national median income (which would be about $70,000 here in the United States), and the country charges a 25 percent value added (sales) tax. In the U.S. one has to make about 700 percent of the national median income ($400,000) before they're subject to top marginal tax rates. The U.S. also has no value added tax, with the steepest sales taxes in the country barely cracking 10 percent.

As Reason's Eric Boehm argued in July, it's crucial for the public to grasp the trade-offs before implementing socialist proposals—particularly single-payer health insurance. Of course, it's lot easier for politicians to convince people they deserve free stuff than it is to explain who's really going to pay for it.

Photo Credit: Screenshot/CNN via YouTube

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cy||

    Great pic. Looks like she just sat on a surpise!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The moment of panic when a socialist is asked how they actually plan to pay for all their "free shit."

  • ||

    I think they just assumed they can raise taxes and further surmise that if they need more, they'll just tax (take - what's the difference at the point?) even more.

    Yes, they're that ignorant and their voters equally as foolish.

  • rocks||

    Reason by attacking republicans and Trump at every chance they get, is supporting nonsense such as these Socialists to take over

  • zazoo||

    Why is that ? Democracy is not a zero-sum gain. Opposing Trump on something doesn't automatically mean embracing socialism.

  • Rorschach||

    I think she's planning to use the Instant Money Invention Plan:

    Why slave away at a job, barely eking out a living, when you could have any salary you dream of? How much money do you want to say you make? $25,000? $250,000? $1 MILLION? How about $500 KAZILLION? THE SKY'S THE LIMIT! If you can say the number, you can tell people that's how much money you make!
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Cynthia Nixon revealed how they're going to pursue this tack--"Pass the laws and we'll figure out how to pay for it after the fact." They really believe that money just appears out of thin air, probably because their ideological ancestors literally took it from the kulak wreckers at the point of a gun.

  • ||

    Don't read the comments. I went to the youtube:

    https://bit.ly/2D3AHtG

  • Trigger Warning||

    The stupid...dear Lord. How do they remember to breathe?

  • AvmanM||

    I couldn't finish watching it. I was hyperventilating at the stupidity.

  • Sonny Bono's Ghost||

    My favorite is the comments on the video, especially the guy screaming, "when are they going to ask the GOP how they will pay for the 717 Billion military budget?

    These people dont understand homany zeros there are in 40 trillion.

  • Think It Through||

    Mmmmm hominy.

  • TangoDelta||

    Now now, let's be fair. AOC said people she worked with couldn't afford the $200 per month for insurance with a possible $8,000 deductible if they have to use it. Now with about 330 million people in the US it seems pretty clear that every man, woman, & child in the US whether resident, tourist, green card holder, etc will be able to afford the definite and probably low estimate of $12,121 per year each. I mean come now, it's only slightly over $1.30 per hour, every hour, for every man, woman, & child in the United States. I'll put it another way, for an 8 hour shift, it's only $4.15 per hour, per person, per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, regardless of whether they are employed or not or even old enough to have a job.

    See? When you break down $40T for a decade and share it equally among all 330M people in the U.S. it's almost as though that $121,212 each melts away. Heck, think of it as spending a mere $33.19 extra on lunch every single one of the 3,652 days of the decade for every single person in the United States. Heck, it's such a low low price why don't we foist the cost just on folks with over a billion dollars, so what if even if we took every penny from all 2,200 billionaires in the world we'd still be $31T short.

    Ok, so maybe we'll have to lower that bar a bit.

  • Al Bendova||

    717 Billion and 40 trillion are almost the same thing. They both end in "illion"

  • swampwiz||

    Neither do Republicans.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    All the money that is now paid to private insurers and non-Medicare government health programs would instead go to Medicare. It's not hard to answer, why won't she just say that?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Exactly, the argument I've heard is that it'll just rearrange the money already being spent within the system.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Then say which taxes are bring raised. If you're going to take the money from my employer they use on insurance now, say that. That's an answer, even if it's a shit one.

  • sarcasmic||

    But because government doesn't waste money on profits, there will be so much more money for medical care.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    40 dollar aspirin will cost 80 now, but the savings from the lack of profit will be passed to the consumer.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    government also doesn't waste money on oversight, control, quality, fraud prevention or customer service so there is a lot of savings to go around.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And that argument is flat out nonsense.

  • TangoDelta||

    How does that work. If it replaces all other spending on healthcare and still raises the total amount spent by 10-12% from ~18% of GDP to over 20% of GDP, how does that save money? Current taxes are only about 17.5% of GDP so that means that taxes are double plus good meaning that healthy folk have far less of their earnings to spend on other things, like a 401(k) and other retirement goodies. Maybe we'll just double down on So-so Security and pauperize everyone. Yep, she's a socialist but we won't have to worry since she's a politician and part of the "in crowd" she'll be living it up while we all fight over the rats in the landfill.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Because her program is orders of magnitude more costly to the federal budget than Obamacare. Because they could raise the bottom income tax rate to 100% and it still wouldn't bring in enough revenue.s\

  • Eddy||

    That's never been a problem before, why should it be now?

  • Fats of Fury||

    The woman's a super genius. The Chavez/ Maduro program made everyone a billionaire. What are the tax rates on billion dollar incomes? Slam dunk!

  • JesseAz||

    Because if she probably knows about the cost shift of government payouts to hospitals that gets lobbied on private insurers. Shes probabaly seen 3 liberal states reject state level insurance for all due to costs. She's dumb, just not that dumb.

  • Mark22||

    All the money that is now paid to private insurers and non-Medicare government health programs would instead go to Medicare.

    If European-style single payer system is the goal, that could easily be paid out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid budget. Our Medicare/Medicaid budget is currently about $1.6T and there are 330 million Americans, giving about $4800/American, more than most European single-payer systems spend.

    There is no reason to raise taxes or touch the private insurance system in the US at all if the goal is Medicare for all.

  • Heraclitus||

    Because the rubes have been trained to say taxation is theft.

  • John Pittman||

    If it isn't theft, send me a large percentage of the money you earn.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    According to a cost analysis in Vox, the main democratic socialist policies would actually cost roughly $42.5 trillion over the next decade.

    Heh. That estimate is probably well short of reality.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's amazing how no writer at Reason has ever read anything outside of Vox and the NYT, as those are the only two sources that they ever cite. They must be the only people who think Vox is a super serious publication

  • BYODB||

    Vox has it's moments, but they're the moments of an occasionally sober alcoholic that wakes up from their stupor just long enough to see what state they're truly in before picking up the bottle again. The NYT never wakes up from their bender.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Like that episode of The League where there's a marijuana drought and Taco is clear headed for the first time in years and has a series of unleavened realizations?

  • D-Pizzle||

    They are the best sources to cite. Because they are tightly aligned with the left, their projections are the absolute best case scenarios for these idiotic ideas, and citing them eliminates the argument that the projections are not realistic.

  • Rockabilly||

    Why just print the money.

    Isn't that how you get a $5 bill or what have you?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe the current suggestion by the Medicare-for-all progressive movement is that it WON'T cost $40 Trillion, that it will actually be CHEAPER than the system we maintain now.

    They're wrong, but that's what they believe, so maybe that's why she didn't answer where the money she doesn't believe is necessary in the first place will come from.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    I'm sure costs will go down once government in it's omnibenevolence starts declining to cover expensive procedures or anything for people beyond their tax producing years. It's a win-win as they reduce medicare & social security.

  • BYODB||

    Well yeah, if you're old and no longer producing why cover any procedure for you? You're a net drain, and therefore ineligible.

    That's how it works elsewhere as well. Those that get what they're looking for are the exception, rather than the rule, given finite resources in a system where everyone has a 'right' to that finite good. You maximize the use of the good when you apply it where it does the most good for the productive class and minimize the cost to the state (I.E. taxpayers) when you deny care to non-producers.

    Logan's Run was apparently a lot more prescient than anyone gave it credit for. Say, is that gem on your hand flashing red? Better get to the Ascension Chamber!

  • L.G. Balzac||

    "Soylent Green is old people"

  • D-Pizzle||

    Do they really not see that the strongest opposition to Medicare for all will be the AARP/senior citizens?

  • TangoDelta||

    Couldn't she just be bad at math? I've heard that there is a push to keep women out of STEM (Statistics, Trigonometry, Economics, & Math).

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If she is representative of women in mathematics, I can see why.

  • Mark22||

    I believe the current suggestion by the Medicare-for-all progressive movement is that it WON'T cost $40 Trillion, that it will actually be CHEAPER than the system we maintain now.

    European style single payer is definitely a lot cheaper than what we have now. It's so cheap that it could be paid for out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid budget ($1.6T = $4800/American/year).

    The first step towards that is to lower costs per person in Medicare/Medicaid to $4800 and then extend it to all Americans.

    Extending it to all Americans at current spending levels, raising taxes to pay for it, and then hoping that they will somehow cut costs later is absurd. In fact, it's fraudulent.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Yes the European system is great..unless you actually want to use it.

    I can tell you a story about Russian system, which is technical Europe. They have medical for all. My ex-future-mother-in-law had a bleeding issue. So if you can get to see a doctor - in a few weeks. That maybe you can get blood - if they have it that day. Or they give you meds, that turn out empty. People with money go to private doctors.

    Guess what. It's not better in Great Britian or Iceland or other places. Oh way, I forget that Socialist paradise Cuba is awesome. Nevermind.

    Btw - you keep staying $4800 dollars per American. One, you do realize most doctors would retire because Medicare only pays about 40% of cost right? You also don't take into account infrastructure so that number would be lower (Right now, private pays most of it).

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Oh and we also spend a ton on the public school system. Kids are getting dumber.
    So how will we do on medical? Is there a government program that has been faster, better cheaper?

    I know a guy that his cancer meds (He's 40ish) is insane like 100K a month if he had to pay for it. Would the government pay or say "Oh well good luck?"

  • Mark22||

    Yes the European system is great..unless you actually want to use it. Btw - you keep staying $4800 dollars per American. One, you do realize most doctors would retire

    I didn't advocate for the European system. I pointed out that if socialists advocate for a European system, they should start implementing it by cutting Medicare expenses back to European levels, instead of start by dragging everybody into the current wasteful system and pretending that they'll lower costs later.

    People with money go to private doctors.

    Correct. And actually, that isn't such a bad system. If Medicare provided inconvenient, basic care for a few thousand dollars per year for everybody out of existing budgets, and the rest of us could buy supplemental insurance, that would be a reasonable system.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    No FQHC in the US covers their budget with Medicaid/Medicare money. They all need grant money. And lots of it.

    Grant money from places like HRSA are generally not considered when we talk about medical revenue.

  • commentator||

    Yeah, the state of The Discourse last month about Medicare4All was that shifting private spending into public spending was a net savings.

    But nobody think's it'll cost the federal budget less, so it still requires some answer for how the government pays its new public expenses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Deer caught in $40,000,000,000,000 headlights.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Venezuela, move over, here we come! Comrade Maduro and Comrade Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will work really-really-REALLY hard for us, and produce the other $38 billion that we need, to pay for it all!

    To quote PJ Orourke, "If you think medical care is expensive now, just you wait till it's free!"

  • Just Say'n||

    It's not right to invoke Venezuela. Be nicer to socialists.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Don't mention Mao either. It's old hat.

  • Just Say'n||

    Or Gulags. We must pretend like that never happened

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nah man. We know they happened, it's just we've already heeeeard it. It's boring now. Think up another socialist failure or I'm not listening.

  • Just Say'n||

    Using state murder to smear socialists is so garish

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Think up another socialist failure or I'm not listening.

    I feel like the Khmer Rouge never gets the attention they deserve.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That happened before anyone was even born. It's not relevant to a hip socialist youth these days.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That wasn't real socialism, just like Venezuela wasn't real socialism the nanosecond it went sideways.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Funny that we didn't hear the folks that were supporting Venezuela's move to socialism saying it wasn't socialism when they supported it.

  • Rat on a train||

    Socialism and deindustrialization? What's not to love.

  • Anomalous||

    Holodomor, anyone?

  • Rat on a train||

    Socialism Rule 1: If it doesn't work, it's not socialism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Socialism Rule 1: If When it doesn't work, it's not socialism.

    FTFY

  • CE||

    Socialism Rule 2: If it doesn't work, you're just not spending enough on it.

  • RabbitHead||

    I'm reminded of a conversation:

    A lefty was emphasizing that it was necessary for schools to provide birth control to children to help ensure that pregnancy did not interfere with their scholastic achievement.

    I pointed out that abstinence was a free way to avoid pregnancy.

    He responded that abstinence didn't work - that rates of pregnancy were higher when abstinence was proposed as a solution.

    I further pointed out that this was not exactly abstinence, as clearly intercourse was taking place.

    His objection was that I couldn't use some imaginary ideal to describe the effects of abstinence, but that we had to consider the actual real-world consequences of trying to implement abstinence to truly see how well it worked.

    "Kind of like Socialism?" I asked?

    The conversation ended.

  • BYODB||

    I usually just ask what's so necessarily amazing about drugging fully one half of the U.S. population with artificial hormones and watch their eyes start to dart around for the nearest exit.

  • TangoDelta||

    "Kind of like Socialism?" I asked?


    I get it! Ideally it works in theory but in practice we're fucked!

  • CE||

    Kind of like the drug war.
    Why are we paying billions and incarcerating millions and creating black market crime and police corruption, when we could end all that by legalizing drugs.
    But then we would have rampant drug abuse!
    Kind of like we do now?

  • JWS||

    *"TRILLION" not "billion".

    Sure they'd be happy to squeeze all the blood from us rocks though.

  • Jima||

    A large number of the rocks are armed and might not be so excited about the commie's generosity plan. It won't be easy for them...

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Something something... wreckers and saboteurs... mumble mumble... re-education through labor... yada yada... something about omelettes and eggs...

  • SQRLSY One||

    *"TRILLION" not "billion".

    Yup, my bad, my typo...

    But what's 3 orders of magnitude anyway, when we're dealing with taxpayer money!?!?!?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But what's 3 orders of magnitude anyway, when we're dealing with taxpayer money!?!?!?

    It's free shit, who cares about costs when it's free?!

  • TangoDelta||

    It's from the government so it's still shit.

  • TangoDelta||

    And even though it's shit, it makes horrible fertilizer.

  • D-Pizzle||

    "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, we're talking about real money."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    The Treasury just needs to hire more people to print the extra money. Problem solved!

  • Anomalous||

    That works really well in Zimbabwe.

  • Uncle Jay||

    ...and the Weimar Republic.
    What could possibly go wrong?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won't Say How She'll Pay for $40 Trillion Platform

    On the backs of you serfs.

  • TangoDelta||

    Everybody's gone serfin'
    Serfin' you S.A.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Goddam politicians watch business people in movies: barking orders and telling people to speed up. "Jones, get me that report in an hour" and so on.

    So they think anyone can be a business leader, except the business world is so bigoted they won't let a poly sci major fresh out of college be a CEO or even VP, so they run for office so they can have all the thrills of running a business and barking orders ("Medicare for All") just like all the big boys and girls.

    Bah.

  • Fooseven||

    This is an excellent point, reminded me of Obama lecturing us about how businesses don't really need overhead

  • TangoDelta||

    Huh. businesses don't really need overhead? Aren't taxes part of overhead? Wait, I think he's on to something!

  • tlapp||

    Tapper got his answer loud and clear. Socialist don't care how you pay for it. Get the people dependent and remain in power by blaming those that have budget concerns as evil people wanting people to die with no healthcare. It is a power grab and damn the consequences.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Sadly journalists won't hammer the point appropriately. He needed to come back with the same question a dozen times until he got the answer "I don't know".

  • BYODB||


    Sadly journalists won't hammer the point appropriately


    That's because they recognize the rhetoric all too well as the rhetoric they were using just five minutes ago. They then get a bit nervous because they remember how well it worked for them.

  • tlapp||

    Medicare for all is the you will take what we give you and pay whatever we charge you healthcare plan. No reason to be concerned with the cost because no alternatives will be allowed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You can get better healthcare if you choose to become a Senator.

  • Rat on a train||

    So it isn't really for all?

  • CE||

    What about free college for all?

  • Just Say'n||

    Understand them. We must try to be nice to socialists and understand them.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    I like this new thing you're doing.

  • Zeb||

    Well, it probably is a good idea to try to understand what the people you are arguing against are talking about rather than just assuming that they mean the same thing you do when they use a word. You don't have to be nice to them, but if you want to argue with them, you ought to understand them. Of course, that sort of assumes that they know what the hell they are talking about, which I'm not so sure of a lot of the time.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, Just Say'n, we have to understand not just what socialism is, but what the self-declared socialists themselves mean by socialism when they use the term.

    I think Ocasio-Cortez is a dim bulb and the people excited by her candidacy are, by and large, not well grounded in reality. But perhaps there is something to be learned on why so many people are excited by her vapid expensive ideas. I doubt it's because they are all proto-Stalinists.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    No, they're Eloi.

  • RabbitHead||

    I have been saying this for years

  • DesigNate||

    What's hard to understand about a six year old wanting every day to be Halloween and Christmas rolled into one?

  • BYODB||

    ^ This.

    That anyone is ascribing some higher beliefs to these idiots is beyond the pale. They simply want to promise everything without regard to what is actually possible. The reason is obvious: being grounded in reality doesn't get you elected. Promising Unicorns gets you elected. Afterwards, no one remembers that you promised unicorns.

    What is perhaps the most astounding is that people are 'shocked' that Republicans are acting this way as well. The better question might be why it took them so long to realize there were no repercussions for this type of behavior when the evidence was right in front of them.

    The Occasional Cortex brand of 'socialism' are children that don't understand even the baseline concept of scarcity. That she took economics and failed to learn this should get her degree revoked since it is the foundation of the entire science.

  • Outside the Box||

    I'm as libertarian/Austrian as anyone here, but I think it is a colossal mistake to assume that anyone who isn't is either an idiot or evil etc. If you really engage with people who advocate other political/economic systems - not the politicians of course, but the actual thinkers behind the scenes... Gary Johnson is not the strongest guy on libertarian theory after all - you will find that they are very smart and very sincere. What's the difference between them and us? Their *subjective preferences*. They simply subjectively prefer different outcomes than we do. Sure, we disagree with them, but jiminy, it is our school of economics that *stresses* that valuation *is always subjective*, that it cannot be the subject of an objective argument.

    In my opinion, when we accept that argument *isn't even in the right dimension* and instead deal with those with different preferences as exactly that - people with different subjective preferences - it will lead us down different paths of actions. Given that the current path of actions that libertarian/AnCaps take are, to be honest, completely ineffective (sorry Libertarian Party, sorry Reason magazine, I like you but you will never change enough Statists into AnCaps to affect change), "a different path" at least has the potential to be a good thing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Thank you. This is exactly right.

    It is just more tribalism run amok to assume "we" are the "good guys" and "they" are the "bad guys". In reality everyone is an individual with different tastes and desires. Libertarians certainly won't win by just copying one of the other teams and trying to imitate them. Why not respect individuals for where they are at for a change?

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    So the Bernie Sander's socialism where he can have 3 house and you can't? Or the Ocasio-Cortez socialism where she doesn't share with co-workers or have any idea on polices and just says things because they get cheers from her closed circle. Also, she was never poor but from a well family (Isn't that always socialist)

    I understand what you are saying and I agree. You can discuss with other side. That's how you learn and expand your view points. I think you are just dying on the wrong hill here.

    If she had a policy and a plan, than sure a discussion could be had. She doesn't. That's what makes her an idiot. If she said, "we need to do X, and Y" than it's a debate. Same as Warren who sits in her ivory tower and doesn't state any polices.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Don't include Thanksgiving. They cry when you kill the pet turkey.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Wow. Free stuff, and some faceless "rich guy" (aka the Other) somewhere will pay for it. What's not to like? Oh, yeah, the way it plays out in practice.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Jeff, now do you understand how we feel about your ideas here?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I thought it was going to come from all the funeral costs Medicare for all will prevent.

  • CE||

    Actually, if her plans were implemented, a lot of people would die sooner, so there may be some cost savings there.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    She'll pay for it with the money raised from tariffs. Get the Chinese to pay their fair share.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another reason that Trump is so awesome- him being elected caused the Democratic Party to shift further Left, so Americans can simply see for themselves that the Socialists are crazy and dont care about Americans.

    Addressing the national debt before the tipping point might be within the realm of possibilities soon.

    I think 8 years of Hillary would have sent the USA over the tipping point and we would have never recovered.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Whole I agree about Hil, I think the slow movement left is gaining momentum and acceptance despite or perhaps exacerbated by Trump. We are doomed, it's just a matter of time. I feel bad for the children.

  • ReasonJosh||

    We didn't need Hillary to send us over the tipping point with our national debt... The Republicans also seem quite content to drive off the fiscal cliff.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If Trump keeps his word, we will see some effort towards austerity in the next budget.

  • Don't look at me.||

    She would've have gotten this far with these ideas if she was ugly.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Every time I stare into her eyes I think, "W...well some of her ideas must be ok... right?"

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Just imagine if she was as hot as....Kate Upton? Or Scarlet Johanssen? I suppose we would all just roll over and take it any way she wanted to give it to us. And be happy to pay for it.

  • DesigNate||

    I'd be sorely tempted to at least.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Get her out of politics and into porn instead.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Then how do you explain Bernie and Lizzie?

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    She's 28. Let's give her a few years.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Socialism: the fiction that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Socialism: the reality that some people can live at the expense of everyone else.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's really offensive that you guys feel the need to smear socialists. It's not libertarian to smear socialists

  • Anomalous||

    Really? I thought that if the libertarians take over, socialist smearing would become the national sport.

  • BYODB||

    Ok, seriously, are you OBL? This smells like OBL.

  • Hooha||

    JS'n is fun, but I don't think that's fair to OBL. He/she/it is an artist; one who has been painstakingly honing their craft.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Yeah, but its so much fun!

  • Don't look at me.||

    A small group of the " right people".

  • Zeb||

    Government.

  • Fats of Fury||

    I'm Nikita Banana and I'm here to say,
    Yes! We have no Bananas, bananas we have no today.

  • Uncle Jay||

    That's the Venezuelan national anthem.

  • fotini901||

    Where do we get the money to pay for our massive bloated military budget?

  • ||

    "Did she promise to slash defense spending or is she just going to spend over the top of it?" that's where.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    You meant the military budget that is dwarfed by what is spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

  • Rat on a train||

    The government needs to take over the military. It will then cost less.

  • Just Say'n||

    And it's indiscriminate killing will be kinder and gentler

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The military budget is ~700 Billion per year, so over the next 10 years it will cost ~7 trillion. Let's say 8 just because of course they'll spend even more.

    So 40 trillion - 2 trillion from occasional cortex's one proposes tax increase - 8 trillion from zeroing out defense spending for the 10 years (as if that would even remotely be possible) = just 30 trillion more to go.

  • Greg Fillonia||

    Math is racist.

  • DesigNate||

    Unlike Medicare-for-all, the constitution actually says that the government is responsible for the national defense.

    And aren't you motherfuckers bitching about how much you're going to be paying in taxes now that SALT has been slashed? Once the government collects their dues, you don't get to decide what they do with it.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    +1 This

  • croaker||

    There's a reason why she's called Occasional-Cortex. Her brain isn't firing on all cylinders, but then again is any proggie's?

  • damikesc||

    Reason will just blame Trump.

  • blondrealist||

    Not that I support the Bernie Sanders' version of Single-payer, but the $42.5 trillion over the next decade number seems to be likely in our current inefficient, multi-tiered, expensive system. We spent about $3.3 trillion in 2016 - which was about 17.9% of GDP. Add in expected health care cost inflation and if we avoid the Bernie plan, we'll probably still spend around $42 trillion in the next decade. I've read research (which I take with a grain of salt) that suggests we'll be spending around 20% of GDP on health care in ten years.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I've read research (which I take with a grain of salt) that suggests we'll be spending around 20% of GDP on health care in ten years

    Considering the Boomers' decades-long effort to pretend that they're still 22 years old, even as they grow increasingly decrepit in their old age, I'd be shocked if that wasn't higher simply due to the sheer effort of keeping these people alive into their 90s. Their simple fear of dying is going to become a cottage industry in developing ever-more heroic medical efforts to save them on the operating table as they get their third hip replacement.

  • blondrealist||

    I'm a boomer - will be 59 next month I don't pretend to be 22, but I don't see myself as old as my dad seemed at 59. Part of the reason is that I'm in better physical condition than my dad was - and part is surely being in denial. At any rate, I think you're correct. The boomers are a large segment of the U.S. population - and that group is absolutely beginning to experience the health challenges that tend to come with getting old (apart from the risks of pretending to be 22 way past that age).

  • Uncle Jay||

    No problem.
    The $42.5 trillion will come from the taxpayers.
    They have an unlimited amount of money.
    Besides, whats a few trillion dollars compared to even more power over all the little people through healthcare by our ruling elitist filth?

  • Rich||

    "$40 trillion is quite a bit of money"

    "The Universe is fairly extensive."

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    The heart wants what it wants, asshole. Who are you to question the heart?

  • ||

    'we have to decide who we want to be as a society' is another one of those worn out, vapid phrases progressives and socialist pimp. When they say 'we have to' they mean 'do what we say'.

    And if you don't go along, watch out. They don't like losing. Just look at Hillary and how the left is reacting since Trump's election.

    Today I heard Biden and Kerry bashing Trump. Kerry said something along the lines of Trump have the maturity of an eight year old boy and insecurity of a teenaged girl.

    My guess? Projection.

  • Zeb||

    The big lie that government can somehow make collective decisions for the whole population is a dangerous one.

  • creech||

    A money tree grows in Brooklyn? Better yet, put health professionals (e.g. doctors, nurses) on salary like in France with tiny raises ever couple years. I'm sure they will love that!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Just wait until their production drops and they start taking a couple months off every year for vacations.

  • Fooseven||

    And then the horror stories about selfish, reckless people who pay cash for black market medical care. Put them in jail!

  • Kirk Solo||

    How can one person be the best thing to happen to the Left and the Right?

  • Peter||

    It's pretty simple, she won't pay, you will.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Which is why I support expanding Medicaid in my red state. Right now hospitals and doctors in blue states are getting taxpayer funds that red states don't get! Republicans pay taxes which means there is wealth redistribution from Republicans to Democrats that Republicans support!

  • The Last American Hero||

    Something nose, tents, and camels.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I think you mean camel toes.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Medicare for All could easily be paid for...but it would be the biggest windfall for the well off in American history! Why would you give free health care to people that are inexplicably satisfied paying for expensive health insurance?!? Free college could also easily be paid for by ending the student loan program and using a fraction of the money to encourage private colleges to use their endowment for tuition.

  • crookedbill||

    This whole interview is painful to watch. She reminds me of an under-qualified job interviewee trying to skirt around questions, talking a lot, but really saying absolutely nothing at all.

  • BYODB||

    No shit, no one cares how she'll 'pay' for it because the type of people that vote for her type are mindless zombie's that will consume the entire nation if given the chance.


    These days the Democrat party is shifting to the party of Unicorns and no one has seemed to notice or even care.


    You'll note Democrat deficits are 'good' and Republican deficits are 'bad' if you read the news at all. The disconnect is telling. Republicans would be wise to abandon talk of deficits, no one gives a shit and it won't win elections so who is left to shill for it? Libertarians that can't manage 5%? Don't make me laugh.

  • Salero21||

    Of course she can't explain anything, she's one more proof that Socialism makes people stupid.

  • BYODB||


    CNN anchor Jake Tapper noted that Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, "including Medicare for All, housing as a federal right, a federal jobs guarantee, tuition-free public college," and "canceling all student loan debt," would cost the federal government more than $40 trillion over 10 years.


    Ah yes, Jake Tapper. Defender of the Democrat Establishment from these upstart Millennial's that thought the Democrats actually believed the shit they've said for the past twenty years. Laughable.


    That he calls him a journalist is amusing to me, personally, since he's so clearly a propagandist for the DNC.

  • BYODB||


    As Reason's Eric Boehm argued in July, it's crucial for the public to grasp the trade-offs before implementing socialist proposals—particularly single-payer health insurance.

    Yes, the trade off will be perhaps around 40 million Americans dead of starvation. However, the other 300 million people will be able to say they theoretically have healthcare while the remaining 10 million or so actually have it.

    The problem with these type of socialists, that being the Occasional Cortex brand of socialists, is that they fundamentally do not believe that resources are finite. They may say they understand it, but the length and breadth of their ethos proves that they absolutely do not understand it whatsoever.

  • Darth Soros||

    Another great photo of Ocasio-Cortez for the "Crazy Eye Alex" file.

    The caption could be, "If we need more money, we can always print it, right?"

  • L.G. Balzac||

    Every dickhead that thinks they know more than the average person is a Democrat.

  • BowserB1946||

    The health insurance industry employs around half a million people. I'm guessing a large portion of them will be out of work with "Medicare for all", although maybe half can get jobs in government processing Medicare billings. It could work, but a few things stand in the way. The transition will be hard on everyone. Gearing up to process applications from a hundred million citizens and 50,000 illegal aliens will take a lot of manpower that hasn't been hired or trained. Existing health insurers will have a hard time processing claims, as their workforces will be jumping ship as fast as they can find employment.

    There is also the matter of doctors, clinics, hospitals, labs, and other providers have budgets that work because only a portion of their business is Medicare cost-based reimbursement. Take away their commercial insurance business, and they start going broke and closing down. Then after the pain suffered by those who work in the insurance industry, the rest of us start to suffer for lack of health care facilities. That's when bureaucrats will start allocating health care to who "needs it most" and is warranted. That's when you get on a list and wait your turn. Welcome to UK health care...or worse.

  • blondrealist||

    I do wonder if Bernie and his friends would improve the odds of passing "Medicare for All" if they modeled after the current version of conventional Medicare, which is the version most seniors 65 and over have. Those Medicare recipients usually buy a supplemental policy from an insurance company. Seems like the politicians would want to strike that sort of a compromise with the insurance industry. Implement Medicare for All for everybody - but keep the deductibles and cost sharing that Medicare has now - and let consumers decide if they want to buy insurance for the gaps.

    Meanwhile, our present mess of an inefficient, multi-tiered, expensive system gets more and more expensive. What's the favored Libertarian health insurance reform proposal look like? It's been a while since I've researched that, but the last time I did I was underwhelmed. Maybe I'm thinking of some dickhead from the Cato Institute talking out of his ass while he enjoys tax-subsidized employer-provided health insurance that also never excluded pre-existing conditions (due to regulations) - unlike the individual health insurance market before the ACA.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    The solution is simple. Raise the federal minimum wage to $1000/hr, and when every full time worker is a multimillionaire, we force those greedy one percenters to finally pay their fair share in taxes!

    I'll be waiting for my Nobel Prize in Economics.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Your ideas are compelling.

  • Trigger Warning||

    This chick is dumber than a bag of Happy Gilmore scripts.

  • Hooha||

    You could have picked any Sandler turd, and you went with Happy Gilmore?? For shame. You know he did Jack, right?

  • Hooha||

    "Jack and Jill", rather. Apparently ampersands are no bueno.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Little Nicky...ugh. Happy Gilmore is a classic!

  • HANSENWT||

    Ironically Happy Gilmore is a good analogy for our 2016 election....I will let you figure out what character represents who.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    Paul Krugman once said a trillion dollar coin could be minted. She can't even come up with that?

  • Don't look at me.||

    If you make one, might as well make 40.

  • CE||

    How did Bush and Obama and Trump pay for the 20 trillion they overspent? They didn't.

    But I have a feeling AOC will soak the rich.

  • HANSENWT||

    Exactly this is an exercise in futility as we all know how she will pay for them. And even if she told the truth, next big question is how would she control the money going to where it should....no one has ever been able to do that.

  • vek||

    Come on guys. Everybody knows all we have to do is double taxes across the board, maybe a little more than double on the middle class, and it'll pay for everything! All that private health spending will not have to be made anymore, so it'll pan out FINE!

    It won't be paying for it that's the problem... The REAL problems will come when doctors start quitting in droves, hospitals close, it takes 2 months to see a doctor for a minor problem, and global health care research (like big pharma!) doesn't have enough money coming in to make any advancements!

    Honestly, we could have socialized medicine... It will just be shitty like it is everywhere, and Europe and the rest of the world will have to start shouldering R&D costs for new medicines and procedures, since we basically cover those costs for most of the world right now.

  • Mark22||

    The biggest culprit is the single-payer health care plan (Medicare for All), which the Mercatus Center says would cost taxpayers $32 trillion.

    If Medicare cut its costs to European single payer levels ($3000/person/year), it could already cover every single American and lower its rates. The problem with Medicare and healthcare in the US is the absurdly high prices, the result of lack of competition and massive government corruption. And giving Medicare even more power won't fix that.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Wow, you went from 4800 above down to 3000 here. If I get to the end of the thread will it be 2000.

    "The problem with Medicare and healthcare in the US is the absurdly high prices, the result of lack of competition and massive government corruption"

    And malpractice insurance, and government oversight/paperwork. And people not understanding when to go to the doctor.

  • Mark22||

    Wow, you went from 4800 above down to 3000 here. If I get to the end of the thread will it be 2000.

    Well, if you could read a little more carefully...

    $4800 is the amount Medicare/Medicaid currently has available if its budget were distributed across all Americans.

    $3000 is the amount many European nations are actually spending.

    Since you mention it, $2000 seems to be the bare minimum for a first world medical system.

  • ||

    The only next answer she can give is "the sweat and blood of your children" because quite a few people will not have children, this is the most politically expedient next step...After they realize there's a short stock of "bourgeoise oppressors" to pay for it.

  • Heraclitus||

    Oh, you got her. I guess we need to stay with our wonderful system. "I'll have a Salad, a Diet Coke, and an appendectomy. Oh, my coupon says that if I get an appendectomy I get half off on my next wellness check as long as it is between May 3rd and June 33rd. And it says if I use my Hospital credit card I get a $50 gift card that I can use toward a spine adjustment at their clinic in New Mexico. But only on Thursdays. I brought my own syringes so make sure you take $2 off my charges."

    Yep, I can't wait til we apply free market models to healthcare.

  • Fooseven||

    Why do you buy your car insurance from a fast food drive thru?

  • vek||

    Except when we had a vastly more free market healthcare system, it was nothing like that. It was more like "Here's your $120, thanks for figuring out I had an ear infection and the prescription for antibiotics!" and then insurance was more or less the same if you got in a car wreck. That first part, just paying someone directly for services rendered, instead of having a middle man for every little thing, was 90% of what created price transparency via competition, and saved overhead costs in the many billions.

  • blondrealist||

    The free market for our healthcare system started degrading after WWII when employer-provided health insurance, with its tax subsidies, starting becoming more popular. I'd say that by the 1980's, true free market health care consumption and health insurance purchasing had pretty much disappeared in the aggregate. The individual health insurance marketplace has mostly been a small piece of the puzzle for decades, and before the ACA, insurance companies typically declined applicants that might be unprofitable due to medical history (and not just for seriously ill people). Workers with employer provided coverage were shielded from the true cost of the insurance and had no say in policy design and little incentive to shop wisely for health care services. Medicare is the other dominant piece of the puzzle, and for the traditional Medicare program - it works as a single-payer hybrid - with little exposure to the free market.

  • Abe Froman||

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to turn the US into the next Venezuela where people are fighting over stray cats and dogs to eat.

  • Rorschach||

    At this point, the stray cat's gotten away and they're fighting over who gets to have the corpse of the guy who got clubbed to death in the fighting.

  • Gasman||

    Spending other people's money is all great, until you run out of other people's money. She has a goal of nothing short of appropriating all wealth. Can't promise free housing for all, without the government first owning all the housing stock, then redistributing according to her whims of worthiness.

  • Tory_M||

    Yeah, except the study that accounted for the majority of the money your saying it will cost is funded by the the Koch brothers. Lets assume the made up numbers are correct though. You guys act like we don't already have a Medicare system we are paying for ir we would be paying for both if we did Medicare for all. Our current system costs about 36 trillion dollars that system would no longer exist. So that is the bulk of it paid for. This is something that would be good for everyone and save lives. Don't let yourself be distracted by nonsensical talking points.

  • ace_m82||

    "Yeah, except the study that accounted for the majority of the money your saying it will cost is funded by the the Koch brothers."

    Ad hominem

    "You guys act like we don't already have a Medicare system we are paying for"

    The ever increasing debt says "we" aren't paying for it.

    "This is something that would be good for everyone and save lives."

    Government control of all things never has any negative ramifications...

    "Don't let yourself be distracted by nonsensical talking points."

    By "nonsense", do you mean the math or the logic?

  • FlameCCT||

    "Denmark's top marginal income tax bracket of 60 percent kicks in for income earners making over 120 percent of national median income (which would be about $70,000 here in the United States), and the country charges a 25 percent value added (sales) tax."

    That is what most people don't understand when they push for nanny government. Hell, even Sweden is having all kinds of political issues with all the "immigrants" using up the funds that were supposed to be for the old and poor.

  • vek||

    That's because any society can only have so many people on the dole, and they flooded their country with almost entirely low income, IF they even bother to work, people who can't support themselves. Americans really don't get that in Europe the middle class pays a TON in taxes either. It HAS TO to support all the shit the government does there. You cannot tax the rich to do it, period. Math is a bitch.

  • Sevo||

    "Americans really don't get that in Europe the middle class pays a TON in taxes either. It HAS TO to support all the shit the government does there. You cannot tax the rich to do it, period. Math is a bitch."

    Hardly even math; sums will do.
    Tony and assorted lefty imbeciles here hope that 'taxing the rich' will fill that black hole. No it won't.
    It's as if cutting the CEO's pay would allow all those wage-earners to buy a home in Burbank. Nope; cut his or her compensation in half, and you're going to get a $0.10/hour increase.
    And you'd better hope your new 'low-rent' CEO keeps the company in business. That may look easy, but check out Sears...

  • Sevo||

    "CNN's Jake Tapper kept asking the socialist candidate where the money would come from. Eventually, he gave up."

    He wouldn't have if it was Trump.

  • USA Patent Attorney||

    I agree!!! You can discuss with other side. That's how you learn and expand your view points. I think you are just dying on the wrong hill here.

  • swampwiz||

    She is just going to fund it by having the Treasury issue bonds, just like the Republicans do.

  • AvmanM||

    Can people stop giving her a platform? She'd go away if no one kept inviting her to TV interviews.

  • LBC||

    Why is foreign intervention not mentioned here as "socialist" and "Orwellian"?

    It seems that the majority of those on the right (as well as many Democrats), all spending on military (which easily exceeds over half of discretionary spending annually for at least the past 15 years) doesn't earn the title of either "socialism" or "collectivism," even though it is obviously is.

    If more here were decrying that kind of prodigious waste of taxpayer money, and were citing past Libertarian presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Andre Marou (who both wanted to close all overseas military bases and shut down the CIA -- great goals indeed), then I might take their "anti-socialist" rants seriously. As it is, I cannot.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online