Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Bernie Sanders’s $18 trillion in proposed spending is more affordable than it sounds

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Implementing the entire Bernie Sanders policy agenda would cost a staggering $18 trillion, according to a somewhat alarmist Wall Street Journal article about Iowa’s favorite social democrat. And it’s true. Sanders would substantially increase the size of explicit federal spending.

But his proposals are also more affordable than you might think.

As you can see from the WSJ’s handy graphic, this “$18 trillion” cost over 10 years can be basically broken down into two buckets.

There’s a $15 trillion Medicare-for-all plan, and then there’s everything else. Everything else tallies up to $3 trillion over 10 years. That is a lot of money. It is, however, $400 billion cheaper than Jeb Bush’s tax cut plan. So the typical middle-class family will get $942 from Jeb Bush, while in Sanders-land the typical middle-class family will get free college, paid parental leave, and a bunch of new transportation infrastructure — plus Sanders averts the need to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age.

So what about this $15 trillion business? Well, Sanders is proposing to have the federal government pay for everyone’s doctor visits, hospital stays, and medical procedures, just the way it currently does for people over the age of 65. Obviously that’s an expensive undertaking. But right now private health insurance plans are projected to spend $14 trillion over the next 10 years, and people are forecast to incur $4 trillion in out-of-pocket expenses. Turning $18 trillion of private spending into $15 trillion of government spending while also expanding access to insurance would actually be an incredibly impressive trick. If you financed it with a broad-based payroll tax (the way Social Security is financed), people with job-based insurance plans wouldn’t even notice the difference — today’s insurance premium line on your pay stub would become a tax line.

The reasonable question to ask about this is not whether it would be affordable, but whether it’s actually true that America could pull off this kind of vast expansion of Medicare while retaining its low cost structure. It’s certainly possible in theory, but when Sanders’s home state of Vermont tried it, the plan collapsed in the legislature over working out the details.

More in Politics

Politics
The real reason Americans hate the economy so muchThe real reason Americans hate the economy so much
Politics

Did decades of low inflation make the public far more unforgiving when it finally did surge?

By Andrew Prokop
Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser