In the grand total, I doubt costs would go down and the CBO has a history of grossly underestimating costs, especially more than 2 years out. Or, if costs really did go down, quality and availability will also follow suit. I think our health care is *good enough*, because there are no plans to centralize it that will reduce costs while keeping quality and availability.

When I refer to Clinton era, I am more or less fixing it to GDP% and more or less general taxation/outlay ratio. Sure, in any budget that large there is room to re-arrange some things, or change spending priorities but if memory serves in 1998 total entitlements were about 9% of GDP.

I think that this number is more or less sustainable, though I think 8% would be a safer number when thinking in the long term.

If you have social and economic issues such that 8% of the total economy cannot successfully help sustain those who are unfortunate enough to require them, then you have much greater social and economic problems of a type that throwing more money at covering the symptoms and ignoring whatever the root issue might be will simply lead to an even bigger collapse down the road. Case in point is Greece. There were a lot of things wrong with Greece, but it is inarguable that they increased govt welfare, govt jobs as means of employment and borrowed heavily to do. Eventually this became unsustainable for them.

Which is where I see us currently heading, which is why I am so opposed to the path we are currently on.

If you want to fudge, plan for a cap of 9% with a target of 8%.

Also, I was agreeing in regards to short term. I think long term, most social programs could be offloaded to the states to craft more local solutions and there are various paths to get there.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)