[BLAZE_MkIV]

But noones pointed out that 31% is discretionary and other.

[Big Mac]

Did the leftists here really claim Defense was the biggest budgetary expense? Are they really that ignorant that they don't know it's Entitlements after all this time?

I guess that explains how people can be supporting the reelection of our pretender in chief. Remarkable, such profound stupidity.

If you intend to vote for BHO, now that he has an obvious failed record in this first term, you're everything that's wrong with this country, and we would all be better off if you'd commit suicide right now. Please do it. Spare the rest of us the misery you plan to inflict on this country, and the world.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

you're everything that's wrong with this country, and we would all be better off if you'd commit suicide right now. Please do it. Spare the rest of us the misery you plan to inflict on this country, and the world.

The only thing that's different about our country now versus back when we were "awesome" is that now anybody can shit out an opinion and get an audience.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I guess that explains how people can be supporting the reelection of our pretender in chief. Remarkable, such profound stupidity.

If you intend to vote for BHO, now that he has an obvious failed record in this first term, you're everything that's wrong with this country, and we would all be better off if you'd commit suicide right now. Please do it. Spare the rest of us the misery you plan to inflict on this country, and the world.

I would suggest that this sort of personal focus be taken out back and shot, but I think your suicide suggestion has burned that option, so I'll just say: no personal attacks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

But noones pointed out that 31% is discretionary and other.

And a big portion of the discretionary expense goes to defense-related expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[30] Department of Defense spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen to between 53% and 54% in recent years

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I would suggest that this sort of personal focus be taken out back and shot, but I think your suicide suggestion has burned that option, so I'll just say: no personal attacks.

For the record, I attacked no particular person with my suggestion.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For the record, I attacked no particular person with my suggestion.

For the record, it's awfully hard to see that from the post in question. The verbiage is all in the same, personal sense, without what I would call the necessary change to "if one plans to..." which would have indicated something different from continued reference to any specific individual. Sure it's ambiguous, but ambiguity cuts both ways.

Back on track...

The entitlement system in this country began (in its current form) with Social Security. I would hardly call that a "leftist" issue, nor would I contemplate that a program that allows the wealthiest nation on the planet to avoid allowing its poorest elders' descent into poverty on retirement a program that deserves deletion. Medicare and Medicaid were both developed from that same point of view: how can this nation justify allowing people to suffer (and cost the rest of us even more in health care costs) due to a lack of funds for health care? A much better point could be made in suggesting that, while these programs have lofty goals, they are poorly administered and managed, and these facets of the programs MUST be fixed as soon - and as thoroughly - as possible. Instead of catching Medicare fraudsters, we should stop them in their tracks. Instead of limiting Medicare and Medicaid coverage based on something a suit on Capital Hill thinks is a good idea, we should manage coverage based on "best practices" and "standards of care," so that Medicare isn't seen as (and isn't functionally) the lowest level of health care.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you intend to vote for BHO, now that he has an obvious failed record in this first term, you're everything that's wrong with this country, and we would all be better off if you'd commit suicide right now. Please do it. Spare the rest of us the misery you plan to inflict on this country, and the world.

Well, then.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For the record, I attacked no particular person with my suggestion.

I've gotten an infraction for an impersonal attack before. Didn't know they existed up until that point.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For the record, I attacked no particular person with my suggestion.

Translation:

Why is the great effort I put into gaming your rules not recognized?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The entitlement system in this country began (in its current form) with Social Security. I would hardly call that a "leftist" issue,

Yes, Social Security is a leftist issue. It was implemented by a left-wing president, FDR, who clearly had Socialistic sympathies at the very least. But his version of Social Security wasn't nearly as pernicious, which I give him credit for. Social Security was originally designed for only the very old and poor; most people didn't live to see retirement age, and there were many more workers supporting the few retirees. If we were to go back to FDR's Social Security that would be a huge step back in the right direction. Unfortunately, the program was expanded by successive presidents, Republican and Democrat, to modern times where you have the ultra-wealthy collecting Entitlements because the Democratic party won't allow means testing of wealthy seniors. They despise and vilify the wealthy during their productive years but fall in love with them in retirement-convenient.

nor would I contemplate that a program that allows the wealthiest nation on the planet to avoid allowing its poorest elders' descent into poverty on retirement a program that deserves deletion.

It needs to be reformed before it's bankrupt, although I would favor outright repeal if that were possible. Congress should immediately be prevented from covering up a portion of the budget deficit by raiding Social Security, a practice started under cursed old LBJ (sorry, Glenn, I know he was a fellow Texan), may he rot.

If you buy into the notion that corrupt government needs to provide a safety net, then have a safety net. I think that if government got out of these unconstitutional spheres, charitable foundations would step in (instead of being crowded out by government services) and deliver for the poor in a much more efficient fashion. And/or leave it up to the states. They can administer supplemental safety net programs as they desire and are able to afford, they way our federal system always intended for it to be. But if you demand a federal government safety net, fine. Constrain it narrowly to being for the poor. Not for the middle class and not for the rich. Not for Gates and Buffet. That's just retarded. Nancy Pelosi retarded.

Medicare and Medicaid were both developed from that same point of view: how can this nation justify allowing people to suffer (and cost the rest of us even more in health care costs) due to a lack of funds for health care?

And both failed, Medicare most of all. I'm sure you're aware of the cost explosion in Medicare versus what it was projected to cost in 1965. Medicaid has also ballooned and threatens both the federal budget and the states.

A much better point could be made in suggesting that, while these programs have lofty goals, they are poorly administered and managed, and these facets of the programs MUST be fixed as soon - and as thoroughly - as possible.

And that's impossible with the type of mindset you argue for. People see any attempt to reform a bankrupt, corrupt system as an attack on their cherished government handout. FDR with Social Security and LBJ with Medicare both knew very well what they were doing-they were going to create a permanent, government-dependent Democratic constituency for their wealth redistribution schemes.

Instead of catching Medicare fraudsters, we should stop them in their tracks.

How? It's endemic to these corrupt schemes. When you have a corrupt, unconstitutional system, it's going to breed abuse and corruption in turn. Entrusting too much power to government to interfere and distort what is properly a private sector function, and that's what you get.

Instead of limiting Medicare and Medicaid coverage based on something a suit on Capital Hill thinks is a good idea, we should manage coverage based on "best practices" and "standards of care," so that Medicare isn't seen as (and isn't functionally) the lowest level of health care.

Sounds great, but it's impossible to do. Only private market competitive forces provide proper incentive to combat fraud, and only private competitive forces provide high quality services.

Apropos: Medicare Monster

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Unfortunately, the program was expanded by successive presidents, Republican and Democrat,

At which point it ceased to be a leftist issue and became a government issue.

[subego]

Therefore, we must all kill ourselves.


And I think with that, it's high time I leave the thread. You get the last word Big.

[Athens]

The real problem with waste is the bureaucratic process and the duplication of services. Federal programs and State programs doing the same things at double the cost to the tax payer. And the bureaucratic inefficiency created by trying to account and manage every buck. Look at welfare. The government collect taxes, then pays people to manage welfare recipients. The management of $1.00 costs $2.00 using up $3.00 in tax money. But you don't want to just cut people off and leave them to the streets either. The real solutions put a lot of government employees and agencies and business dependent on this funding out of work so they lobby against radical ideas that would actually save a lot of money. When you give a welfare recipient $500.00 in cash to spend and then employee people to pay there rent, provide food stamps, to assist in finding employment and offer other services that are supposed to assist the recipient you end up spending easily $2000 per recipient when a more cost effective solution would be to just give the recipient $1200 (Adjust for location as cost of living is different everywhere) and let them find solutions to baby sitting, job fairs, buying food, paying rent. When they have the money in hand they will find the most efficient ways to make every penny count because its (there money) vs some one at a desk deciding for them. The negative income tax scheme allows for that with a pay back claw when employed. Removes a ton of bureaucracy and thus saves a lot of wasted money. Easier to manage, more fair, puts the control back in the hands of the person and saves the tax payer money. But the companies and people supported by the system would never allow something that radical.

[ghporter]

Athens has it right, but not necessarily for all the right reasons.

Medicare and Medicaid are in need of a huge management and bureaucratic overhaul, not because they are not working, but because they are working so inefficiently, in terms of both cost and time.

First, historically Medicare fraud has been stopped after the fact. Some (%@)^% cheats the system out of $3mil and eventually goes to prison, but that money is gone. Bean counters say the system is too expensive and start to squeeze honest practitioners by cutting reimbursement. Instead of that, the system should work more like when businesses order stuff "net 30" and the vendor considers the business' track record for payment as to whether they take the order. If practitioners' records for both honesty and effectiveness were considered before bills were paid, a lot less money could go down the tubes.

And the follow up for payment can be glacially slow. The hospital bills medicare for a 2 week stay for grandma Jane to have her broken hip fixed, and gets paid maybe 2-6 months later. It's kind of hard to run a business when your biggest customer is that inconsistent in paying. Here again, if the hospital gets quicker payment because it has a track record of good outcomes, that encourages work on keeping those outcomes good: healthy (enough) people get discharged, people who need to stay in the hospital stay there until they can go home safely without a significant probability that they'll have a setback and have to be readmitted soon.

This part is actually starting to be implemented. Too slowly, and too quietly, because hospital corporations are still under the impression that they should be asking patients if they liked the monogrammed towels and if everyone was sweet and sunshiney to them, instead of tracking how many times they had to come back to the hospital because they weren't really done there yet. Sure, making patients happy is a good thing, but making them healthy is, to quote Ford, "job one." There is way too much spent on treating people who shouldn't have gone home and got REALLY sick there instead of keeping them in the hospital a few more days and making sure they're as stable as they might seem.

[Athens]

I was using the welfare as a example specifically to demonstrate how waste occurs trying to account for services provided and providing services that are really not needed or could be provided for less in the private sector.

My point I was trying to make was

Under current system government runs programs to help people find jobs, to issue out stamps only good for food, and so forth and give recipients $500 in cash while spending 3x+ more on the programs that may or may not be taken advantage of. That might help or not help. So for every $1.00 in the recipients pocket, $2-3 dollars ends up in some ones else pocket funded as a service or support system.

It would be more cost effective to just give the recipient more directly and remove all the programs. The recipient can then use that money to achieve the same help from private programs and be more frugal spending it because it becomes there money.


I don't know how to apply that example to the 2 biggest wastes of money which is medicare and medicad.

Some of the wastes I see in medicare comes from the fragmentation of the systems and services.

I believe my model above on the welfare recipient applies in the bureaucracy of the medical systems involved, IE, Medicare being the insurance company vs contracting out services to established insurance companies and maybe paying a difference because the people would normally be uninsureable.

The problem I see in the medical side of things is you can't have 2 totally different systems running side by side. You either have all public insurance or all private insurance.

But I am sure the bureaucratic mess of medicare means it spends $3.00 for every $1.00 actually spent on patients trying to micromanage care, provide services and support just like the welfare example. A entire industry grows up around it and tries to take something of the pie for itself.

[Athens]

Another problem is no one really thinks things out, when its some one else's money to waste they waste it. I'll give you a perfect example where the bureaucracy fails.

Vancouver has a Rapid Transit system called Skytrain. It is mostly elevated, and the system was built in the early 80s and with out fare gates. It was a honor based system, you had to have your ticket while in a fare paid zone like the platforms or on the trains. Was it a good idea to built it with out fare gates then, prob not. Now before I continue I want to point out that I made heavy usage of the New York Subways, and used the Bart system in San Francisco, both are gated systems. And as a transit user I absolutely prefer the ease of a non gated system like our skytrain in all respects. Now back to my example, we have a problem with fare evasion on the system. It is estimated to cost the system $4 million a year in lost revenue from fare evasion. Now like the record companies the assumption is that every single one of those people would have paid had there been gates. This is flawed thinking. First some of them don't pay because they have nothing to pay. End of the day they wouldn't use the system if it had a means to stop them. It wouldn't increase revenue from those people. Secondly unless every one of those gates is manned by some one a lot of those that don't pay will just defeat the gates some way. I saw this a lot in New York at gates with no attendants. The brilliant idea from bureaucrats is to spend $170 million to retrofit all the stations on the system with fare gates.

I don't know about you but this solution actually makes me mad. Spending $170 Million to stop $4 million in fare evasion and that number is suspect because with out additional money spent policing every gate to ensure the current fare evaders don't just continue to evade even with gates plus those that don't have money just not using the system seems like a waste of a $170 million dollars. At the same time makes the system look ugly, messes up with the flow of passengers and makes it less inviting. This is a example of bureaucratic waste, wasting other peoples money, the transit users and the tax payer on a solution that isn't really a solution and will never pay for itself ever.

The real solution was to make the tickets and fines for being caught with out a ticket more expensive and collectible so those that can pay will always pay to avoid one.

But these kinds of decisions are epidemic in the bureaucratic world. Finding solutions that are not solutions at all but look good on face value only while wasting a lot of money to do it. This can apply to Education, Medical, Roads and Bridges, Military, all levels of government.

Note free loaders piss me off on Skytrain because I always pay. But the idea to stop them is worse then the free loaders.

[ghporter]

Athens, that's a perfect example of throwing money at a problem that doesn't need an expensive solution, but rather a thoughtful one. Fare gates for $170M? How much would it cost to station paid employees at the gates, give 'em radios and set up support for them from police? Less than $4M per year, I'll bet. But a technical solution is more visible, and it looks all shiny, so that's what they went for. A helpful human who also checks for passes could also provide route information, help families find misplaced children, summon aid in medical emergencies, etc., and provide a human touch that sounds like it fits in Vancouver. Adding gates sounds like it will turn Vancouver's Skytrain system into something that resembles NYC's subway system-which works, but fits a very different culture.

This is pretty much the same way the US Welfare system has been managed. Good Idea: keep people from starving on the street because they cannot find employment. Bad Idea: providing sufficient funds for food and reduced cost (and subsidized) housing with arbitrary qualifications based solely on family size and income. Worse Idea: funding the construction of almost all reduced cost housing without even considering the location and social situation of that location (let alone how such concentration of poor people will affect the social situation there). In some ways this encourages "learned helplessness," which is often seen as "a sense of entitlement" (because we now have several generations of people who have grown up with a promise that they'll be paid to be idle), and it also concentrates people with little in the way of education or social skills, which leads to a new culture of "valuing" everything but hard work, diligence, and earning what one gets. So a "technical" solution (funding, housing, etc.) devised without thought given to how it will affect the systems around it, looks good to the voters, but is either counterproductive (and increasingly expensive), or worse. What about well thought out plans to assist people on the short term, place families instead of compacting them in slums, encourage family cohesion instead of paying more support for "fatherless" families (yes, Welfare does that), and providing incentives to earn a decent income instead of disqualifying people based solely on that arbitrary income threshold? Nope, that takes too much thought, so the over-educated lawyers in Congress don't want to bother with it.

(Sorry for not warning about the sarcasm there. I hope it didn't drip too much.)

[Athens]

Milton Friedman views on welfare was astonishing on how the system is setup in a way to create a self sustaining ecosystem feeding off the misery of people. The attempt to control the assistance to people though programs only made sure people stayed on welfare itself. A lot of things I disagreed with Milton Friedman on, lots of things I agreed with. On the issue of big government, government waste, and programs like Welfare I totally agreed with him on. His solution with a negative income tax is something I liked a lot. It pretty much replaces the welfare system totally and all the waste that goes into it.

Back on the medical side of things because there is a lot of waste in there, I can't see many solutions for us Medicare. I think a large part of the waste comes from the overall method of how US health care is fragmented to start with. And thats a big problem because between medicare and social security that's 50% of the spending isn't it?

[ghporter]

I can only add that this points out what happens when people who have no concept of what they're tinkering with write the rules. A bunch of lawyers wrote these rules, apparently believing that there was some sort of set system of other rules they could depend on, such as "everyone is motivated to..." and so on. They were wrong, and in their haste to fix things they broke, they broke more things - with each update to the system.

A group of people with a basic, altruistic motive tried to do something good, but it had to go through so many layers of codification and compromise that it wound up being something bad in the long run. It's one of the best examples of unintended consequences there is, right up there with "war reparations will teach those Germans a lesson."

[Athens]

yup I totally agree.

And of course the changes needed are to radical. And to many parties are dependent on the status quo as well. I found myself agreeing with Milton Friedman 50% of the time, like issues with welfare and big government and thinking he was flat wrong 50% of the time such as totally free markets. A totally free market solution only works with other totally free market solutions. This requires isolationism with other kind in like economies. Example would be if Canada was a totally free market, and the US was a totally free market and the UK was a totally free market, the 3 economies could easily trade with each other. But they could not trade with China or Spain because of the radical difference in labor costs, economic control and subsidies.

His ideas on taxation, the negative income tax, and reducing government are sound though. I like the point he made about airbags, a consumer should have the right to say I don't want to pay for this feature vs a ninny state trying to make everything safe for all. I also like what he had to say about medical research and the problems big government have introduced in that.

Social Security is a massive 20% spending of the total budget. Almost all of what is made up as Social Security could be eradicated through the tax system. People, old, young, poor would still be protected. As for Medical, I think a modified version of the Canadian system would benefit the US. If not that then the system Switzerland went with. Both would cut medical by half or more. Drop a 100 billion from defense spending and you have a situation of surplus not deficits.