The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
10-23-2018, 04:15 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 324
Total Cats: 37
Careful, now. You're starting to sound like a Libertarian.
But, yes, this is fundamentally the correct attitude. In an ideal world, the US Government would do / spend virtually nothing which is not related to:
1: Defending the security of the US,
2: Defending the liberties of the citizens of the US, and
3: Regulating the critical infrastructure which allows the country to function, and protecting it from harm.
But, yes, this is fundamentally the correct attitude. In an ideal world, the US Government would do / spend virtually nothing which is not related to:
1: Defending the security of the US,
2: Defending the liberties of the citizens of the US, and
3: Regulating the critical infrastructure which allows the country to function, and protecting it from harm.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 04:32 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Which is why I always find it curious when the first thing people want to cut is military spending, since that's one of the very few things the federal government is actually supposed to be spending money on. The government is spending insane amounts of money on things it has no business even thinking or talking about, yet everyone wants to cut spending on the one thing they do that's actually important and useful.
Do we still really need 800 military bases in 70 countries around the World? If every country in the World decided to join forces, which is highly unlikely, combined they don't have the Naval power to even step foot on the US mainland before they'd be wiped out. We have 11 aircraft carriers to the rest of the World's 9. We have a huge superiority in the air as well when it comes to aircraft and number of pilots.
Anyone who thinks there is any real chance of us going to war with China, Russia, DPRK, etc, should really do something other than watch Fox News.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 04:36 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 04:42 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 324
Total Cats: 37
Because the amount we spend is mind boggling. We spend something like 40% of all defense spending for the entire World.
Do we still really need 800 military bases in 70 countries around the World? If every country in the World decided to join forces, which is highly unlikely, combined they don't have the Naval power to even step foot on the US mainland before they'd be wiped out. We have 11 aircraft carriers to the rest of the World's 9. We have a huge superiority in the air as well when it comes to aircraft and number of pilots.
Anyone who thinks there is any real chance of us going to war with China, Russia, DPRK, etc, should really do something other than watch Fox News.
Do we still really need 800 military bases in 70 countries around the World? If every country in the World decided to join forces, which is highly unlikely, combined they don't have the Naval power to even step foot on the US mainland before they'd be wiped out. We have 11 aircraft carriers to the rest of the World's 9. We have a huge superiority in the air as well when it comes to aircraft and number of pilots.
Anyone who thinks there is any real chance of us going to war with China, Russia, DPRK, etc, should really do something other than watch Fox News.
Reply
1
1
10-23-2018, 04:47 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I'd love to see an incentive plan put it in to place to save money vs "If you don't the spend the $100 million you had last year, we will cut your budget."
Say your department has a $100 million budget this year. You find a way to get things done and save 5%, $5 million for your dept. Return 60% of that to the employees in the form of a bonus, and return the other 40% back to the budget for the next.
I'm in no way saying this quick idea is perfect, but there has to be something done with the runaway budgets.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 05:03 PM
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 324
Total Cats: 37
Those of us who have worked for defense companies know that "inefficiencies" doesn't even begin to cover it. There is no incentive for the government to be efficient because they just take more money.
I'd love to see an incentive plan put it in to place to save money vs "If you don't the spend the $100 million you had last year, we will cut your budget."
Say your department has a $100 million budget this year. You find a way to get things done and save 5%, $5 million for your dept. Return 60% of that to the employees in the form of a bonus, and return the other 40% back to the budget for the next.
I'm in no way saying this quick idea is perfect, but there has to be something done with the runaway budgets.
I'd love to see an incentive plan put it in to place to save money vs "If you don't the spend the $100 million you had last year, we will cut your budget."
Say your department has a $100 million budget this year. You find a way to get things done and save 5%, $5 million for your dept. Return 60% of that to the employees in the form of a bonus, and return the other 40% back to the budget for the next.
I'm in no way saying this quick idea is perfect, but there has to be something done with the runaway budgets.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 05:09 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
military budget is 15% of entire budget. SS/Labor and Medicare/Health is 61%.
we could cut the entire military is still be in deficit.
and to answer all the questions, yes we do. we are world police.
we could cut the entire military is still be in deficit.
and to answer all the questions, yes we do. we are world police.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 05:14 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
And we shouldn't be the world's police.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 05:40 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,676
Total Cats: 3,017
If I'm reading between the lines here I'm seeing it being proposed that we have too big of military that keeps us way too safe and that we need to substantially cut the spending on the military to make ourselves more vulnerable.
I will be the first one to admit that the Air Force brass is a bunch of dipshitz who spend the money they have access to inappropriately. The F-35 project is a clusterfuck of over complication and expense. The brass likes expensive, sexy, fast planes and not ones for doing actual work (like the A-10). The Air Force brass does not believe ground support is important because they don't have troops on the ground like the Army does. It's a bunch of little political fiefdoms in every single Department. That's your real problem.
But seriously, cancel Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Education and about three dozen others and we can talk about smarter spending in the military.
I will be the first one to admit that the Air Force brass is a bunch of dipshitz who spend the money they have access to inappropriately. The F-35 project is a clusterfuck of over complication and expense. The brass likes expensive, sexy, fast planes and not ones for doing actual work (like the A-10). The Air Force brass does not believe ground support is important because they don't have troops on the ground like the Army does. It's a bunch of little political fiefdoms in every single Department. That's your real problem.
But seriously, cancel Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Education and about three dozen others and we can talk about smarter spending in the military.
Reply
0
0
10-23-2018, 06:50 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,076
Total Cats: 6,630
Since more and more physicians are transitioning to being a part of a group managed-care organization, Medicare has started negotiating with those organizations. My mother down in Florida (who I am convinced is never going to retire) is the high mukkity-muck Director of Something I Can't Remember for the Millennium Physicians Group. They're one of the largest such organizations anywhere. A few hundred doctors and tens of thousands of patients, nearly all on Medicare.
They started an "Accountable Care Organization" a couple of years ago, and this is the group that mom is in charge of. The way it works is this: Each year, Medicare says "Last year, your patients cost us $xxx million dollars (most of which is hospital costs, which the organization does not benefit from), and you provided primary care for xx,000 patients. If you can decrease that cost by (some random percentage) while still meeting these standards for patient outcome / quality of care, then we will split the savings with you 50/50."
So far, it's working. They've scored multi-million dollar payouts every year they've been doing it, and it's mostly just simple stuff. Like having a fleet of travelling nurse practitioners who routinely make house-calls on patients who are either high-risk or have a habit of frequently showing up in the ER, to provide them with preventative care and prevent needless ER visits and hospital admissions.
And that's good, as Medicare is the largest single line-item in the budget. Trouble is, I can't see any way of implementing such a technique with direct-payout entitlements, such as food stamps, disability, social security, welfare, and so on. These programs, by definition, already operate at 0% efficiency. Eliminating them entirely would be ideal for We the People, but political suicide for whoever actually tried to implement it.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2018, 08:40 AM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
If I'm reading between the lines here I'm seeing it being proposed that we have too big of military that keeps us way too safe and that we need to substantially cut the spending on the military to make ourselves more vulnerable.
I will be the first one to admit that the Air Force brass is a bunch of dipshitz who spend the money they have access to inappropriately. The F-35 project is a clusterfuck of over complication and expense. The brass likes expensive, sexy, fast planes and not ones for doing actual work (like the A-10). The Air Force brass does not believe ground support is important because they don't have troops on the ground like the Army does. It's a bunch of little political fiefdoms in every single Department. That's your real problem.
But seriously, cancel Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Education and about three dozen others and we can talk about smarter spending in the military.
I will be the first one to admit that the Air Force brass is a bunch of dipshitz who spend the money they have access to inappropriately. The F-35 project is a clusterfuck of over complication and expense. The brass likes expensive, sexy, fast planes and not ones for doing actual work (like the A-10). The Air Force brass does not believe ground support is important because they don't have troops on the ground like the Army does. It's a bunch of little political fiefdoms in every single Department. That's your real problem.
But seriously, cancel Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal Endowment for the Arts and the Department of Education and about three dozen others and we can talk about smarter spending in the military.
I don't buy into the "If we don't spend XXXXXXXXX we won't be safe." I mean, billions of dollars spent on the War on Drugs is working, yeah?
But seriously, how could even cancel the big two? I'm OK with canceling Medicaid, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."
Are we suddenly going to tell everyone that depends on SS and Medicare............"Well, sorry! Enjoy dying in the gutter!"
This concept has recently been implemented in the Medicare system.
Since more and more physicians are transitioning to being a part of a group managed-care organization, Medicare has started negotiating with those organizations. My mother down in Florida (who I am convinced is never going to retire) is the high mukkity-muck Director of Something I Can't Remember for the Millennium Physicians Group. They're one of the largest such organizations anywhere. A few hundred doctors and tens of thousands of patients, nearly all on Medicare.
They started an "Accountable Care Organization" a couple of years ago, and this is the group that mom is in charge of. The way it works is this: Each year, Medicare says "Last year, your patients cost us $xxx million dollars (most of which is hospital costs, which the organization does not benefit from), and you provided primary care for xx,000 patients. If you can decrease that cost by (some random percentage) while still meeting these standards for patient outcome / quality of care, then we will split the savings with you 50/50."
So far, it's working. They've scored multi-million dollar payouts every year they've been doing it, and it's mostly just simple stuff. Like having a fleet of travelling nurse practitioners who routinely make house-calls on patients who are either high-risk or have a habit of frequently showing up in the ER, to provide them with preventative care and prevent needless ER visits and hospital admissions.
And that's good, as Medicare is the largest single line-item in the budget. Trouble is, I can't see any way of implementing such a technique with direct-payout entitlements, such as food stamps, disability, social security, welfare, and so on. These programs, by definition, already operate at 0% efficiency. Eliminating them entirely would be ideal for We the People, but political suicide for whoever actually tried to implement it.
Since more and more physicians are transitioning to being a part of a group managed-care organization, Medicare has started negotiating with those organizations. My mother down in Florida (who I am convinced is never going to retire) is the high mukkity-muck Director of Something I Can't Remember for the Millennium Physicians Group. They're one of the largest such organizations anywhere. A few hundred doctors and tens of thousands of patients, nearly all on Medicare.
They started an "Accountable Care Organization" a couple of years ago, and this is the group that mom is in charge of. The way it works is this: Each year, Medicare says "Last year, your patients cost us $xxx million dollars (most of which is hospital costs, which the organization does not benefit from), and you provided primary care for xx,000 patients. If you can decrease that cost by (some random percentage) while still meeting these standards for patient outcome / quality of care, then we will split the savings with you 50/50."
So far, it's working. They've scored multi-million dollar payouts every year they've been doing it, and it's mostly just simple stuff. Like having a fleet of travelling nurse practitioners who routinely make house-calls on patients who are either high-risk or have a habit of frequently showing up in the ER, to provide them with preventative care and prevent needless ER visits and hospital admissions.
And that's good, as Medicare is the largest single line-item in the budget. Trouble is, I can't see any way of implementing such a technique with direct-payout entitlements, such as food stamps, disability, social security, welfare, and so on. These programs, by definition, already operate at 0% efficiency. Eliminating them entirely would be ideal for We the People, but political suicide for whoever actually tried to implement it.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2018, 09:09 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 790
Total Cats: 188
As it pertains to healthcare spending, massive market inefficiencies (bureaucratic and otherwise) prevent our huge investments from being converted into real value for constituents. ACO's are a great example; in principle they're great, and provide incentives to lower the cost of care. In reality, it's almost always easier to cheat the rules than it is to provide good care for less money. There are big incentives to work in wealthy suburban areas and take on elective procedures and low-morbidity patients who recover with minimal drama/cost. Lower income areas and sicker patients get less care, poorer care, and little or no preventative care. The net effect is to make healthcare on the whole more expensive, not less. The jury is still out because these programs are relatively new, but the studies so far are not encouraging.
I suspect similar dynamics are at work with defense spending.
What does this mean? I'm not sure. I think the only way to fix the problem is to increase efficiency and value in the system, and I don't think brute-force spending cuts enable that. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
There's a saying in business that the worst way to solve a problem is to throw money at it. The same rules apply for taking money away. However, those seem to be the only tools that our government knows how to use.
I suspect similar dynamics are at work with defense spending.
What does this mean? I'm not sure. I think the only way to fix the problem is to increase efficiency and value in the system, and I don't think brute-force spending cuts enable that. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
There's a saying in business that the worst way to solve a problem is to throw money at it. The same rules apply for taking money away. However, those seem to be the only tools that our government knows how to use.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2018, 09:35 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,509
Total Cats: 4,080
SS is br0ke. the only case you can make for it is the appeal to emotion cliche "think of the old people" fallacy.
SS doesn't have to be br0ke, but it's run by government.
It's a pretty simple and noble concept: make sure people save enough for retirement.
the reality however is: tax people's hard earned money now, so they can't invest it/save it/spend it, and give them pennies on the dollar later in life when they are too destitute to be able to work -- because of course we can't except comrades to save up money on their own throughout their working lives.
it was poorly designed, poorly managed, and poorly executed. it's going to be insolvent within our lifetimes -- when it's our turn to be paid out.
Reagan actually took steps into making sure that didn't happen, but liberals needed to pay for Obamaphones to get more votes and we raid the trust funds. The surplus in the SS trust fund is excepted to be depleted by 2034.
One simple problem is people live significantly longer than when SS was first enacted. And many even work past retirement age -- and generally live another 20 years. So more people are collecting payments for longer. When all the baby boomers retire, the problem will only amplify. It's simple math: more people withdrawing than paying in. And the only way to solve it is raise taxes, lower payouts and/or conditional payouts. But the longer we wait, the worse the problem/cuts will be.
Another problem is that the birthrate is much lower than when the law was enacted. by 2034, when the SS trust will be depleted, the number of people eligible for getting their money back will increase by 39%, but at the same time only 9% of workers will be added into the economy. On day one, there were 42 workers per beneficiary, today it's less than 2.
These are both just the tip of the huge chunk of the federal budget iceberg.
And since no one wants to cut anything once we have it, it'll never happen. Currently, by my retirement age, the program is projected it be about $4 TRILLION dollars in the hole.
SS was a safety net program. Now it's an unnecessary HUGE burden -- just like all the pension plans that are killing off businesses/governments.
sources:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/?fbcl...g_6NmM_2Ra-SGM
https://www.justfacts.com/socialsecu...nancial-causes
Reply
0
0
10-24-2018, 09:40 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,676
Total Cats: 3,017
You really want to solve the medical expense problem? Remove government completely from the equation and enact tort reform. No forced health insurance on employers and employees. Allow catastrophic event health insurance to be sold and not just full everything all the time. Deregulate the prescription industry and stop forcing people to go to doctors for simple medications. ( sidebar -- we need to allow the freedom to use experimental treatments for diseases that are terminal anyway. Many other countries do this).
If we enable tort reform and protect doctors and pharmaceutical companies from exorbitant and unreasonable judgments then the price of Medical care can have another another great hurdle removed on the past to sensibility.
All of this crap with the insurance is a very new thing did not exist previously. People paid in anyway they were able for healthcare to their Physicians. They would often pay with chickens and other things in rural areas. And because the doctors did not have to carry a huge amount of insurance and the regulation of medications did not require them to be so expensive people got taken care of.
If we enable tort reform and protect doctors and pharmaceutical companies from exorbitant and unreasonable judgments then the price of Medical care can have another another great hurdle removed on the past to sensibility.
All of this crap with the insurance is a very new thing did not exist previously. People paid in anyway they were able for healthcare to their Physicians. They would often pay with chickens and other things in rural areas. And because the doctors did not have to carry a huge amount of insurance and the regulation of medications did not require them to be so expensive people got taken care of.
Reply
0
0
10-24-2018, 10:02 AM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
We all know SS is a huge problem, people live longer, there are less people paying into the system, etc. but how do we fix it?
Tell the people currently paying in, you have to keep paying for the old people that are dependent on it and still save for your own retirement while not getting any of that sweet SS money when you retire.
In reality, that's what is already happening, but the politicians won't admit it. I'm 36, I have no illusions about their being SS when I retire. Hell, I don't have any illusions I'll ever be able to retire.
You really want to solve the medical expense problem? Remove government completely from the equation and enact tort reform. No forced health insurance on employers and employees. Allow catastrophic event health insurance to be sold and not just full everything all the time. Deregulate the prescription industry and stop forcing people to go to doctors for simple medications. ( sidebar -- we need to allow the freedom to use experimental treatments for diseases that are terminal anyway. Many other countries do this).
If we enable tort reform and protect doctors and pharmaceutical companies from exorbitant and unreasonable judgments then the price of Medical care can have another another great hurdle removed on the past to sensibility.
All of this crap with the insurance is a very new thing did not exist previously. People paid in anyway they were able for healthcare to their Physicians. They would often pay with chickens and other things in rural areas. And because the doctors did not have to carry a huge amount of insurance and the regulation of medications did not require them to be so expensive people got taken care of.
If we enable tort reform and protect doctors and pharmaceutical companies from exorbitant and unreasonable judgments then the price of Medical care can have another another great hurdle removed on the past to sensibility.
All of this crap with the insurance is a very new thing did not exist previously. People paid in anyway they were able for healthcare to their Physicians. They would often pay with chickens and other things in rural areas. And because the doctors did not have to carry a huge amount of insurance and the regulation of medications did not require them to be so expensive people got taken care of.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701901/
"This result suggests that the mean change in Texas health insurers’ LPE was not statistically different from the mean change in non-reform state health insurers’ LPE from in the years 2004–2010 relative to 2001–2003. This evidence is consistent with our null hypothesis that the Texas tort reform efforts had no spillover effects that substantially influenced the losses incurred by health insurers."
Reply
0
0
