I'm not sure where you get the $145 trillion from; Wikipedia cites a number less than half that at this source. More importantly, it notes that mammoth number comes from covering Medicare and Social Security FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS. We're running a pretty hefty deficit; it kinda goes without saying that continuing to do so until 2086 would mean deficits that make the current one look minuscule. Which is why a $4 trillion deficit reduction deal is a lot more appealing than a $2 trillion deal that simply buys politicians a year before confronting with the same choices to reduce an even larger deficit. All because raising the lowest taxes in half a century is unthinkable. Even cutting Medicare and Medicaid to a bare minimum won't do the job by itself.

I'm all for socialized medicine (though there's no reason private insurance can't stick around if it really does pay for better care at a lower price than a public option would) but it's clearly not happening. Put an end to private insurance companies jacking up premiums for care they don't provide, then turning around and jacking up malpractice insurance rates TOO and I still think a lot of that problem would go away without doctors going on food stamps or families being unable to sue when an incompetent quack kills their husband/father/child. That's an important issue, definitely; you may recall me saying many times during the healthcare debate that the skyrocketing costs of healthcare are bankrupting Medicare as surely as the individuals, just taking slightly longer to do it. However, it's only indirectly and partly responsible for our deficit; regularly and reflexively slashing taxes has played its role as well. Suggesting we can solve the problem by just dumping Medicare and/or making doctors work for free with no liability for injuring or killing patients is no more realistic than suggesting we just tax millionaires at 80%. Ideas like that aren't just unfair and unjust (though they're that, too), they're ineffective.