[Big Mac]

If you want an idea of what real health care reform looks like, witness the wonderful work done in Minnesota by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty:

If you tie money to results, you'll get better results. Unfortunately, government often dumps money into programs without regard to accountability and outcomes. This past week, Democrats in Congress have been busy tinkering with a Washington takeover of the health-care system, but perhaps they should look instead to the states for models of market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused reform. Rather than taking power away from states, federal health-care reform should use the lessons we've learned tackling this crisis in our back yards.

Pawlenty sets forth in editorial the ways in which his state has truly reformed health care, and juxtaposes his efforts with those of Congress or Massachusetts. The federal government has shown through its destructive Medicare, Medicaid and VA systems that it is absolutely inept at managing health insurance and care. If the Democrats blindly past their handiwork, the system that will be created will invariably lead us to a Single Payer and national bankruptcy. Instead of demonizing the insurance companies, which the dirty Dems like Pelosi did after their attempt to vilify out of power Republicans failed, let's have a real national debate about true health care reform.

[BadKosh]

The Dems are mixing apples and oranges. The issues are Cost of the insurance - which is why some don't have it, and the second issue is the providers and how they actually provide the care. The payment side may need some fixing, but why screw with the processes involved in getting tests, drugs, and other treatments?

[Big Mac]

Well, for one the notion is that doctors sometimes perform unnecessary tests. Obama and others think that it's because doctors want to get paid more, and the broken reimbursement systems that medicare and insurers use rewards doctors not for getting the right diagnose as cheaply as possible but for performing a quantity of tests and procedures. That's probably true to an extent, but the Democrats inexplicably close the door on medical liability reform, which another reason why doctors perform tests: to shield themselves from lawsuits. If one didn't know any better, it would seem the Dems are in bed with the trial lawyers.

We know this Democratically controlled Congress is going to screw up in a multitude of ways. We know that Obama doesn't even read through the thousands of pages that make up these bills. Sigh. I grow wary of being so much smarter than the politicians and so much of the country.

[Dork.]

There's something to his argument. Many Democrats talk about "access to health care" like it's the holy grail. And while access is a problem, it is directly related to cost. Decreasing the out-of-pocket cost of Health Care will give more people access to health care, because they will be able to afford it. And simply having he Government pay for the cost of health care is insufficient, since we all pay for the Government. After all, you can give everyone free health care coverage through a Government program, but that doesn't mean it costs nothing.

We've gotta be careful, though:

In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.

Who is it that's deciding which clinics are OK and which clinics are "more costly and less efficient"? Somebody has to. And since "consumers vote wisely with their feet and their wallets", they will of course only go to clinics that are covered. So, while he can get all high and mighty about how the almighty consumer has a choice in the matter, in reality the choice is made when an administrator decides to admit a particular clinic: if he or she does not, that clinic will likely fail.

I will say one more thing, though: key to controlling health care costs is controlling the escalating costs of litigation. Any health care reform without tort reform will simply not work, and we'll still be complaining about spiraling costs 20 years from now, during Jenna Bush's administration. Lets see if the Democrats in Congress realize this....

[hyteckit]

Government often dumps money into programs without regard to accountability and outcomes.

Yeah, it's called national defense.

Billions of dollars spend on building F-22 fighter jets that have never been flown in wars for the past 30 years.

I say cut national defense by half and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[BadKosh]

And get out of the UN too!

0bama and the libs want to make the USA a 3rd world nation that can never be the police force for the free world.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

0bama and the libs want to make the USA a 3rd world nation that can never be the police force for the free world.

It's true, I got it in the secret weekly newsletter.

[Chongo]

We spend just as much on SS and more on Medicare/Medicare. Defense spending is mandated by the constitution, the other three are not.

[Big Mac]

I had a nice reply to hyteckit covering spending comparisons between wars and entitlements (something like one year of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending is equivalent to six years of spending in Iraq) the new costly mandates that Congress will impose to increase the price of every insurance plan, and the waste, fraud and abuse of the government option that the government will have little incentive to stop because it can just create endless deficit dollars. But then I got logged out and lost my post, so oh well.

Edit: Valiant effort, Chongo, but the left doesn't respect objective reality. Remember when we had this debate before and that misleading expanded defense costs chart was broken out? I can't tell if they're too ignorant to know any better or too evil to prevent themselves from advocating the financial ruination of this country.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We spend just as much on SS and more on Medicare/Medicare. Defense spending is mandated by the constitution, the other three are not.

Defense spending is mandated in the Constitution? Really? In billions of dollars or as a percentage of the federal budget?

[Chongo]

Not to derail this thread but, hyteckit, do you want a US with no military at all?

from the naked Communist
Goal 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

[Big Mac]

IANH - I am not hyteckit!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Defense spending is mandated in the Constitution? Really? In billions of dollars or as a percentage of the federal budget?

Article 1 Section 8 specifies this only in regard to monetary funding limits.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Article 1 Section 8 specifies this only in regard to monetary funding limits.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's granting Congress the power to raise and support armies, not the obligation. So Congress is empowered to fund the military, but is also empowered to not fund the military. (Not that I think they shouldn't fund the military. It would be great to live in a world where the US does not need a military, but that world is not this one. Though I do think we could afford to reduce spending without hampering the effectiveness of our military, and probably even enhancing it by more intelligently allocating funds.)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We spend just as much on SS and more on Medicare/Medicare. Defense spending is mandated by the constitution, the other three are not.

A lot of the defense spending is done outside the normal budget process.Not that I'm dismissing your data out of hand, but I wonder if that's the total amount spent from 2008, or just what was in the budget that was agreed upon at the beginning of the fiscal year.

This thread was about health care spending, though, and whichever numbers you use we are spending a ton of money on it.

[ghporter]

I've said on more than one occasion that PATIENT OUTCOME should be the first, and in many cases the only standard that any health care activity should be judged on. I find it interesting that a governor would actually figure this out too-since it sort of eliminates all sorts of nepotism and cronyism that state governments are generally built on. "If you want money from the state for health care, you have to show that what you are doing works." It's way too simple and way too understandable (and doable) for most governments to be able to even see, let alone implement.

[hyteckit]

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.



Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During FY 2008, the U.S. government spent nearly $800 billion on defense and homeland security, approximately 32% of tax collections of $2.5 trillion.[15]

Department of Defense: $741 billion
Homeland Security: $52 billion


What Are the Costs of War in Iraq - Iraq War Costs

Cost of Iraq War 2003-2008: $657 billion

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not to derail this thread but, hyteckit, do you want a US with no military at all?

Did you not read what I wrote? I say cut national defense by half.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Did you not read what I wrote? I say cut national defense by half.

But where would you stop? What would be an acceptable level?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.



Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During FY 2008, the U.S. government spent nearly $800 billion on defense and homeland security, approximately 32% of tax collections of $2.5 trillion.[15]

Department of Defense: $741 billion
Homeland Security: $52 billion


What Are the Costs of War in Iraq - Iraq War Costs

Cost of Iraq War 2003-2008: $657 billion

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

Don't for get these:
Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)
* $644 billion - Social Security
* $408 billion - Medicare
* $224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
* $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
* $260 billion - Interest on National Debt

.67 trillion dollars behind is
Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%)

* $515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense
* $145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror
* $70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services
* $59.2 billion - United States Department of Education
* $44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
* $38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
* $38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs
* $37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security
* $25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy
* $20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture
* $20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice
* $17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
* $12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury
* $11.5 billion - United States Department of Transportation
* $10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior
* $10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor
* $8.4 billion - Social Security Administration
* $7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency
* $6.9 billion - National Science Foundation
* $6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts)
* $4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress)
* $4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers
* $0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President
* $0.7 billion - Small Business Administration
* $7.2 billion - Other agencies
* $39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending

[Big Mac]

And hyteckit would replace the defense spending with entitlements waste.

[BadKosh]

when would we be weak enough to overthrow? Why would you risk it? Try something NEW. Accountability. What would you change to link politicians to the stupid ideas they suggest, and even worse, make law? We only get the government we deserve. This time the emotional, and ignorant decided that 0bama and socialism was better. Is it?

[Chongo]

Sorry for the cross posting, but this is pretty amazing video
YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

when would we be weak enough to overthrow? Why would you risk it? Try something NEW. Accountability. What would you change to link politicians to the stupid ideas they suggest, and even worse, make law? We only get the government we deserve. This time the emotional, and ignorant decided that 0bama and socialism was better. Is it?

Cutting spending doesn't necessarily and automatically mean reducing our military strength. If money is being wasted or invested poorly, cutting that spending could actually increase our military strength.

For example the Air Force recently announced that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter jet they build, and that they are working on building drone's that can take over any role a manned jet can. Drones cost less than manned jets in both dollars and human lives. Therefore transitioning more missions to unpiloted aircraft over piloted aircraft represents reduced spending but not a reduction of military might.

[BadKosh]

I know all that. I work in the aerospace industry and follow it. What about improvements to existing systems?
Our troops need to be better equipped. We need to replace the 'consumables' like bullets, bombs, etc. We need to have more troops so the workloads can be shared instead of making the same folks go back into war zones again, and again.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not to derail this thread but, hyteckit, do you want a US with no military at all?

from the naked Communist
Goal 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Jeez, nekkid commies sounds scary. Their wimmins probably never shave their legs.

Of course, the founding fathers didn't believe in standing armies either, but they was a bunch 'o commies too!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And hyteckit would replace the defense spending with entitlements waste.

No, I would replace wasteful defense spending with investment in America's economy, education, technological advancement, medical research, infrastructure, and working citizens.

You know stuff that will make America a stronger nation?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I know all that. I work in the aerospace industry and follow it. What about improvements to existing systems?
Our troops need to be better equipped. We need to replace the 'consumables' like bullets, bombs, etc. We need to have more troops so the workloads can be shared instead of making the same folks go back into war zones again, and again.

Sounds to me like we need more robots armed with energy weapons.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, I would replace wasteful defense spending with investment in America's economy, education, technological advancement, medical research, infrastructure, and working citizens.

You know stuff that will make America a stronger nation?

Now here's a really sterling question: how do you define "wasteful defense spending?" $60 hammers are a thing of the past, though there are some quite expensive things DoD buys because they are built to handle the environments they're supposed to be used in. Would you cut defense payrolls? How? By cutting the still woefully low pay individual service members receive? Or by cutting the pay of the civil service civilians that provide the backbone of many major support activities? Oh, hey, how about cutting spending on the Coast Guard (yes they DO fall under DoD for most operations) so they can stay warm and dry while your sailboat sinks because you didn't check the weather before heading out?

Ever since McNamera was put in charge of the Defense Department, people have been thinking that you can run defense of the nation like a business, and that's just as much bunk today as it was 48 years ago. The business of defending our nation is INHERENTLY wasteful-spending $50,000 on a missile to blow up a hut full of bad guys may sound like a huge waste, since it's such a large number, but what about the GIs that are NOT going in themselves to be wounded or killed? Saving death benefits on ONE Soldier pays for the missile... Our defense materiel, like tanks and airplanes, are really SUPPOSED to be disposable when needed, because they're just tools, not "real property," though it's always a good thing to get plenty of use out of these expensive things before they get used up.

And think about how much R&D is done within the Department of Defense itself. There have been more medical studies of traumatic brain injury conducted by DoD-connected researchers in the last 5 years than had ever been done before 2004. Other applied research for defense purposes has proven to be quite a good investment. Education? I earned two associate degrees and one BS while on active duty because the Air Force paid a big chunk of my tuition. And education? How do you think most people got their advanced education after WWII? Yep, VA programs, funded BECAUSE of defense. A startling number of people STILL enlist for the education benefits, and that has meant enormous increases in the education level of a number of demographic groups. The only thing that you listed that DoD isn't actively spending money on right now is certain parts of the national infrastructure, only because they are so expensive. The Interstate Highway system was originally called the "Eisenhower Defense Interstate Highway System," by the way, and it was built first and foremost to enable DoD to move troops and equipment to where they were needed within the US, with civil uses considered very much secondary.

The fact that thousands of very smart people (including McNamera-he was not idiot, just not "defense minded") have tried and tried to make the enormous organization that is the Department of Defense more efficient with its money and that we still have a lot of waste does not mean that all of that wast is bad. The money spent finding out that one 18 year old cannot become a Soldier by having him fail in basic training is money well spent if he is put out instead of putting his squadmates in danger. The money spent "wasting" ammunition on regular marksmanship practice pays off enormously when it means that in combat the people getting that practice hit their targets and bring firefights to a quick end. It's the bureaucracy that most people think of when they think of waste, but how can you employ somewhere around 10 MILLION people including civil service without a bureaucracy? Improving business practices within the bureaucracies in Defense is the best idea, but you actually have to know what those practices are to fix them, and THEN you have to have permission, since most of those practices are set up to fulfill oversight or other Congressional requirements. Yeah, it's back on Congress' shoulders. Surprise.

So defense spending DOES address the economy, education, technical advancement, medical research, much of the national infrastructure, and working Americans. What would you cut?