Celebrating a healthier future: A 1960s-style Canadian family symbolizes the legacy of universal healthcare in Canada. Pioneered by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan in 1947 with hospital insurance and expanded to Medicare in 1962, this system laid the foundation for the nationwide adoption of universal healthcare in 1966. Today, it remains a cornerstone of Canada's commitment to equitable health for all

In This Article:

• What is Universal Basic Income and how can it be funded?
• How universal healthcare and tuition-free college unlock $3 trillion annually
• What $900 billion in climate funding could accomplish
• Why deficit spending supports economic growth and stability
• How smarter, redirected spending benefits every American

How To Make The US Budget Benefit Every American For The Same Cost

by Robert Jennings, InnerSelf.com

Sometimes, the most straightforward solutions stare us in the face. Yet, we struggle to see them through the haze of complexity and resistance to change. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country—over $4.5 trillion annually. That's $12,000 per person annually, nearly double what France spends, despite France being widely regarded as having one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Yet, what do we get in the US for all that money? Certainly not the best outcomes. Our life expectancy is lower, our maternal mortality rates are higher, and chronic diseases run rampant. It doesn't have to be this way.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are calling for a $2 trillion cut in the federal budget. Here's the thing: we can do it, but not by slashing vital services. Instead, we can save that money while improving every American's life by transitioning to a universal healthcare system modeled after France's.

And the cherry on top? This transformation would only cost the private sector as much as it's already spending today. In fact, it would free up resources for universal college, a basic UBI (Universal Basic Income), or tackling climate change. Let's break this down and see how it could work.

The idea in this article is straightforward: Americans, businesses, and governments are already spending heavily on healthcare and higher education. By redirecting these funds to a universal healthcare system, similar to other OECD countries, and having the government cover tuition and books directly, significant savings could be achieved. These savings could then be allocated elsewhere. Most Americans wouldn’t see an increase in out-of-pocket expenses, thanks to basic income payments offsetting any costs.

The U.S. Healthcare Paradox

The United States' healthcare system is a paradox of extremes. On one hand, we have cutting-edge medical technology, some of the best specialists in the world, and innovative treatments. On the other hand, we have millions of people who can't afford to see a doctor or fill a prescription.

Our system needs to be more cohesive and efficient. Administrative costs comprise over $600 billion a year, much of which is spent on duplicative billing, layers of bureaucracy, and navigating the complexities of private insurance.

In addition to waste, the U.S. pays far more for prescription drugs than any other country. It's not because the drugs are better; the system allows pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever the market will bear. Add in high provider costs and an emphasis on expensive treatments over preventive care, and it's no wonder we're spending so much while getting so little in return.

UK's Healthcare System: A Better Way

So what's the UK doing differently? For starters, every British citizen has access to healthcare without exception, thanks to the publicly funded National Health Service (NHS). The government negotiates drug prices, pays providers directly, and operates with significantly lower administrative costs compared to the U.S. While private insurance exists for faster access or perks like private rooms, the NHS ensures comprehensive care for everyone.

The UK prioritizes prevention and access to primary care through General Practitioners, helping catch health issues early and reducing the need for costly hospitalizations. At approximately $5,000 per person annually, the NHS delivers quality care at less than half the cost of the U.S. system. Built on efficiency and fairness, the NHS remains a global model for universal healthcare.

The Financial Case for a Universal System

If the U.S. adopted a UK-style universal healthcare system, our total healthcare spending could drop from $4.5 trillion per year to $1.66 trillion annually. That's a savings of $2.84 trillion every year in government and private healthcare spending. The private sector's current expenditures—about $2.25 trillion on premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and employer contributions—could simply be redirected to taxes to fund the system. There would be no net cost to individuals or businesses, but how we pay for healthcare would shift.

Here's the kicker: by redirecting the private sector's current spending on healthcare into taxes to fund a universal system, the government would gain an additional $2.25 trillion annually. This massive influx of funds—equal to what private entities already pay for premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and employer contributions—could be redirected to programs that benefit all Americans.

Combined with the systemic savings of $590 billion from reduced government inefficiencies, this approach provides more than $2.84 trillion annually to fund transformative initiatives like universal college, a UBI program, or climate change adaptation and mitigation, all while maintaining high-quality healthcare for everyone.

Let's Get Serious About the Reform

By transitioning to a universal healthcare system modeled after the UK's, the United States could save approximately $2.84 trillion annually. This substantial sum opens the door to transformative investments in areas like universal college education, a Universal Basic Income (UBI), and climate change mitigation. Let's explore how these funds could be allocated:

Universal College Education

If the United States adopted a tuition-free public college system, the savings would go far beyond simply eliminating tuition bills. Families, students, and even employers shoulder an enormous financial burden to cover the costs of higher education. American students owe a staggering $1.74 trillion in student loan debt, with the average borrower carrying nearly $29,000 in loans. Families spend an average of over $10,000 each year on in-state tuition and fees at public colleges. In contrast, out-of-state tuition often doubles that amount. Room and board can add another $14,000 to $15,000 annually, with textbooks and supplies adding hundreds more to the bill.

Individual States invest significantly in public higher education, contributing billions of dollars annually to subsidize tuition costs. Similarly, many employers offer tuition assistance programs, which, while valuable, divert resources that could be used for wages, benefits, or other employee support. Transitioning to a federally funded, tuition-free model would save students and families thousands of dollars per year and free up substantial funds for states and employers to reallocate. It would also make higher education available to those in lower-income brackets.

The private sector savings could be transformative. With these costs eliminated, the federal government could redirect the equivalent of these private expenditures into public programs by shifting them into taxes. Families, states, and businesses would no longer need to shoulder these costs directly. Still, their contributions through taxes would enable universal programs that benefit everyone.

For instance, a Universal Basic Income (UBI) could become a reality, providing a financial safety net for all Americans. Similarly, redirecting these funds could support climate change mitigation efforts, such as renewable energy development, infrastructure improvements, and disaster preparedness, which would save billions in future damages.

By rethinking how higher education is funded, the United States could transform access to learning and unlock the resources to address some of the nation's most pressing challenges. This restructuring isn't just about education; it's about building a more equitable and sustainable future for all Americans.

Universal Basic Income (UBI)

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) program offering $12,000 annually is a bold and achievable vision when implemented as a weighted system. Rather than providing $12,000 for every individual outright, this approach allocates the funds based on a weighted household model. Under this system, the head of a household would receive the entire $12,000. In contrast, each additional household member would be weighted at half, receiving $6,000. For example, a family of four would be counted as three weighted individuals, resulting in a total UBI of $36,000 for the household annually. 

This program would replace all forms of welfare, food-stamps, etc. and eliminate the stigma of being poor as these people would receive a basic income not necessitating their begging a government official for money. It would not only benefit their finances but their self-esteem and self-worth.

The estimated cost of this weighted UBI model for the bottom 90% of Americans would total roughly $2.5 trillion annually, fitting comfortably within the $3 trillion in savings and reallocations from transitioning to universal healthcare and tuition-free public college. This structure ensures financial stability for households without overextending resources, making it both economically viable and equitable.

For college students living away from home, the $12,000 annual UBI aligns closely with the average cost of room and board, effectively covering these essential living expenses. This weighted approach also ensures that households of different sizes receive appropriate support tailored to their needs. After fully funding the UBI, there would still be approximately $500 billion left over annually, which could be directed toward critical priorities like climate change adaptation and mitigation.

This weighted UBI model demonstrates how systemic reform can provide economic security for millions of Americans while maintaining fiscal responsibility and leaving room to invest in the nation's future.

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

By combining the $500 billion left from implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) with the $400 billion saved through streamlining welfare programs with a UBI, the United States could allocate approximately $900 billion annually to combat climate change. This massive investment would provide the resources needed to address the growing environmental crisis while fostering economic resilience.

With $900 billion annually, the U.S. could dramatically scale the transition to renewable energy. This includes expanding wind, solar, and hydroelectric power generation while modernizing the energy grid to integrate these renewable sources efficiently and increase storage capacity. Such advancements would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also create a more stable and sustainable energy infrastructure for the future.

Investments in climate resilience infrastructure would help protect communities from the increasing severity of extreme weather events. Retrofitting roads, bridges, levees, and coastal defenses would safeguard vital infrastructure. At the same time, improved water management systems would prepare for droughts and floods. These upgrades are crucial for minimizing climate-related disasters' economic and human toll.

Funding could also be directed toward carbon capture and storage technologies, a critical tool for mitigating climate change. Expanding research and deployment of these technologies, alongside restoring natural carbon sinks like forests and wetlands, would help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These efforts would work hand-in-hand with emission reduction initiatives to combat global warming.

Agriculture, a significant contributor to emissions, could benefit from programs supporting sustainable and regenerative practices. Farmers could be incentivized to adopt methods that improve soil health and reduce emissions. Investments in more localized and sustainable food systems would further minimize waste and strengthen food security.

On a global scale, the U.S. could contribute to international climate funds, assisting developing nations in transitioning to renewable energy and adapting to climate impacts. This would reinforce America's leadership on the global stage while fostering international collaboration in addressing climate change.

Redirecting these funds would not only position the U.S. as a leader in the fight against climate change but also create millions of green jobs, boost economic growth, and protect future generations from the devastating impacts of an overheating planet. This bold strategy demonstrates how systemic healthcare, education, and welfare reforms can unlock resources to tackle one of humanity's most pressing challenges.

Ending Deficit Spending While Investing in the Future

Deficit spending is, in fact, one of the primary ways the government creates money to sustain an expanding economy. While excessive deficits can signal inefficiency, abruptly cutting government spending would significantly shrink the money supply, potentially triggering a recession or depression. Rather than slashing programs that millions of Americans rely on, systemic reforms like those outlined in this plan allow for smarter spending rather than the severity of austerity.

By redirecting funds through a universal healthcare system, tuition-free college, and streamlined welfare programs, the economy would maintain its necessary financial inputs, ensuring continued growth. These reforms would not eliminate the annual deficit entirely but would help control inflationary pressures by reducing inefficiencies and redirecting funds where they are most impactful. If inflation became a concern, taxes could be modestly raised on the wealthiest 10% to stabilize the economy without burdening the majority of Americans.

This approach preserves the critical role of deficit spending in sustaining economic expansion and ensures that government spending supports long-term efficiency and equity, creating a more stable and resilient economy.

Overcoming the Challenges

Of course, this kind of transformation will take work. The healthcare industry is a powerful lobby, and many people fear change, even when it's for the better. Critics will claim that universal healthcare will lead to rationing or lower quality of care, but the evidence does not support this. Countries like the UK, France, Germany, and Canada provide universal coverage while maintaining high standards of care.

We also have to address public misconceptions. People worry about higher taxes, but under this system, those taxes would simply replace what they already pay in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. For most Americans, it would be a wash—or even a savings when UBI is considered.

A Vision for the Future

Imagine a United States where everyone has access to healthcare, regardless of income or employment status. Imagine a system where businesses are no longer burdened with providing insurance. Imagine a society where the savings from an efficient healthcare system fund universal education, a basic income, and bold action on climate change. That future is within our grasp.

Everyone can quibble with these figures, but the gist is correct. And I didn't even attack the wasteful defense department or refer to the repurposing of labor to genuinely resourceful endeavors.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to cut $2 trillion from the budget by making the US economy efficent. Let's take them up on that challenge, but let's do it in a way that strengthens the nation, uplifts every American, and leaves no one behind. Universal healthcare, Universal college, and Basic income isn't just the right thing to do—it's brilliant.

About the Author

Robert Jennings is co-publisher of InnerSelf.com with his wife Marie T Russell. He attended the University of Florida, Southern Technical Institute, and the University of Central Florida with studies in real estate, urban development, finance, architectural engineering, and elementary education. He was a member of the US Marine Corps and The US Army having commanded a field artillery battery in Germany. He worked in real estate finance, construction and development for 25 years before starting InnerSelf.com in 1996.

InnerSelf is dedicated to sharing information that allows people to make educated and insightful choices in their personal life, for the good of the commons, and for the well-being of the planet. InnerSelf Magazine is in its 30+year of publication in either print (1984-1995) or online as InnerSelf.com. Please support our work.

 Creative Commons 4.0

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License. Attribute the author Robert Jennings, InnerSelf.com. Link back to the article This article originally appeared on InnerSelf.com

books_healthcare