Yup. One with math.

 

 

That was good. BTW both of your arguments are spiralling downward, not upward as is your usual path.

Yup. One with math.

 

Math? Really?!

 

You mean projections, AKA estimates.

 

Because our government is VERY good at estimating things.

 

Math is fact.

 

Estimates are not, especially when they come from the Government.

 

I've already seen numerous stories/studies come out that show how much more expensive this will end up being -- but there is no point in posting them because those too, are estimates.

 

I'm simply saying, from where I stand, working in the industry, things aren't quite as they seem, nor are these guesses the government projected nearly in line with reality. And in 6 to 8 years you and everyone else will begin to see that.

 

Edit: Allow me to add that I honestly hope you are correct and I'm very wrong in this. It would be nice if all of our problems were solved.

Edited April 27, 201015 yr by Y2HH

That was good. BTW both of your arguments are spiralling downward, not upward as is your usual path.

I'm struggling to get a wireless printer to work so I didn't have time to run through the whole list.

Um, I believe that most people who go to Mexico for medical treatment, who don't already live on or near the border, do so to get treatment and/or drugs that they can't get here because of the FDA. Experimental procedures, things like that. Not because of the stellar facilities and top flight doctors.

 

 

And this line in the story says it all.

however, the cost of health care in this country has become so expensive that even some U.S. health insurance companies are coordinating with hospitals overseas.

COST OF CARE, not insurance. What waqs done to fix cost of care by our wonderful government? Nothing,really.

Edited April 27, 201015 yr by Alpha Dog

I like responding to being yelled at by calmly posting graphs.

 

but your graph does show nothing has been done to control costs. they keep going up up up. so in that sense you are proving Y2HH correct.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/26/cheap...gery/index.html

 

 

they are going to need to outsource health care. there is no way around it. use foreign hospitals and doctors to give care to people. costs in the US are out of control.

but your graph does show nothing has been done to control costs. they keep going up up up. so in that sense you are proving Y2HH correct.

But when you cover 30 million extra people at a 1% cost increase...you've decreased the cost per person by 28%.

But when you cover 30 million extra people at a 1% cost increase...you've decreased the cost per person by 28%.

 

I'd be curious the last time that a major governmental program was institued that actually came anywhere near its projecting. The last major expansion of medicare was blowing out projecting in a couple of years.

I'd be curious the last time that a major governmental program was institued that actually came anywhere near its projecting. The last major expansion of medicare was blowing out projecting in a couple of years.

That's because the Bush administration threatened to fire the guys who were putting together more accurate estimates. Can you allege the same thing at the CBO in this round?

That's because the Bush administration threatened to fire the guys who were putting together more accurate estimates. Can you allege the same thing at the CBO in this round?

 

Judging by the history of governmental programs? Absolutely. I would honestly assume they were wrong until proven otherwise.

Judging by the history of governmental programs? Absolutely. I would honestly assume they were wrong until proven otherwise.

So if that's the stance to take... how do you do anything at all that costs money? If you were in Congress, or the executive branch, what would be your recommendation for trying to budget anything?

 

So if that's the stance to take... how do you do anything at all that costs money? If you were in Congress, or the executive branch, what would be your recommendation for trying to budget anything?

 

You do it for historical multiples of what we are told, just like we always have. Honestly, I think it is as great of a reason as any that there should be a whole lot less federal government in this country. If I were in federal government it would be justification number one for cuts of extremely inefficient departments

You do it for historical multiples of what we are told, just like we always have. Honestly, I think it is as great of a reason as any that there should be a whole lot less federal government in this country. If I were in federal government it would be justification number one for cuts of extremely inefficient departments

Oh please, start naming the list of things you'd love to cut. I love hearing how cutting back on education spending or medicare or social security or whatever else you want to name is going to balance the budget forever, especially for the ones with dedicated funding streams. It's fun.

 

(I'm just going to assume you're educated enough that you won't fire off the canards of eliminating foreign aid and waste).

Oh please, start naming the list of things you'd love to cut. I love hearing how cutting back on education spending or medicare or social security or whatever else you want to name is going to balance the budget forever, especially for the ones with dedicated funding streams. It's fun.

 

(I'm just going to assume you're educated enough that you won't fire off the canards of eliminating foreign aid and waste).

That last bit can and should be a real emphasis. The only reasons it comes off as a "canard" are:

 

1. Many people who say it, don't actually know what it means or how to address it

2. Most people want to make it either "throw more money at it" or "cut everything X%", neither of which are meaningful.

 

If you took a real, business-minded look at things in government, you could absolutely cut waste and save money. In fact, Obama has done a little of this already, though not nearly enough.

 

Judging by the history of governmental programs? Absolutely. I would honestly assume they were wrong until proven otherwise.

 

I would lean more towards this reasoning than against. Perhaps if it was worded, show me the money. But we all should demand the sort of accountability.

That last bit can and should be a real emphasis. The only reasons it comes off as a "canard" are:

 

1. Many people who say it, don't actually know what it means or how to address it

2. Most people want to make it either "throw more money at it" or "cut everything X%", neither of which are meaningful.

 

If you took a real, business-minded look at things in government, you could absolutely cut waste and save money. In fact, Obama has done a little of this already, though not nearly enough.

Am I denying there's waste in governance? No, that'd be silly. But what always happens is people get elected promising to balance the budget by demolishing waste (I believe that governor a**-grabber got elected by smashing an old automobile), then they get into office, go after that evil waste, and they find it's a factor of 100x or 1000x less than what they originally thought. And the waste that is there winds up being in things that they can't cut...like where it saves you large sums of money to provide people with family planning services and end of life services, but then you wind up being accused of setting up "Death panels".

 

Things like Medicare, Social Security, etc., wind up operating with vastly lower operating costs than similar setups outside of the government, because they're helped by economies of scale.

 

The one place where there's probably legitimately large amounts of "Waste" that you could cut...the DOD. But defense cuts = you want all the troops to die. So, the only way to actually eliminate waste is to spend even more money on defense to make it look better, like Obama had to do in order to get rid of the F-22.

Another great Californian example is the prison system, which is a gigantic, large, huge drain on the state's resources. Dramatically overcrowded, falling apart, hugely expensive. It'd be a great place to cut back on waste...waste like paying overtime for the guards, waste like hiring private companies to ship prisoners out of state, waste like all the other things that you have to do to manage a large, overcrowded prison system.

 

But...cutting the waste means you're required to do 1 of 2 things. Either you need to build more prisons so that you don't have to pay the guards you currently have huge overtime salaries to deal with the overcrowding at their location, or you need to imprison fewer people.

 

It's really easy to call stuff "Waste" if you want to get elected. It's really hard to deal with the political realities of cutting that waste.

Am I denying there's waste in governance? No, that'd be silly. But what always happens is people get elected promising to balance the budget by demolishing waste (I believe that governor a**-grabber got elected by smashing an old automobile), then they get into office, go after that evil waste, and they find it's a factor of 100x or 1000x less than what they originally thought. And the waste that is there winds up being in things that they can't cut...like where it saves you large sums of money to provide people with family planning services and end of life services, but then you wind up being accused of setting up "Death panels".

 

Things like Medicare, Social Security, etc., wind up operating with vastly lower operating costs than similar setups outside of the government, because they're helped by economies of scale.

 

The one place where there's probably legitimately large amounts of "Waste" that you could cut...the DOD. But defense cuts = you want all the troops to die. So, the only way to actually eliminate waste is to spend even more money on defense to make it look better, like Obama had to do in order to get rid of the F-22.

There are federal agencies that deliver something like 10%, or less, of their money/services to the constituents they intend to serve. There is plenty of waste that can be cut. Its not that its dramatically less - its more about the political realities you mention.

 

Am I denying there's waste in governance? No, that'd be silly. But what always happens is people get elected promising to balance the budget by demolishing waste (I believe that governor a**-grabber got elected by smashing an old automobile), then they get into office, go after that evil waste, and they find it's a factor of 100x or 1000x less than what they originally thought. And the waste that is there winds up being in things that they can't cut...like where it saves you large sums of money to provide people with family planning services and end of life services, but then you wind up being accused of setting up "Death panels".

 

Things like Medicare, Social Security, etc., wind up operating with vastly lower operating costs than similar setups outside of the government, because they're helped by economies of scale.

 

The one place where there's probably legitimately large amounts of "Waste" that you could cut...the DOD. But defense cuts = you want all the troops to die. So, the only way to actually eliminate waste is to spend even more money on defense to make it look better, like Obama had to do in order to get rid of the F-22.

 

Here is an massive example of waste in government, and this is recent.

 

I have family that work for streets and san.

 

The City was renting trucks for years for various duties, hauling, etc. I'd venture to guess they were being rented from friends of the Daley family, but that's just speculation and not the point I'm trying to make. All the while they were doing this -- now get this -- they owned and maintained their own fleet of the SAME exact trucks. So on top of already owning them outright, they were RENTING them, and as an added bonus, while the ones they owned sat unused, they were forced to rent a storage facility in order to store these unused trucks.

 

* Rental cost of storage facility -- wasted.

* Rental cost of rented vehicles -- wasted.

 

Waste like that is EVERYWHERE in government. You wanted an example, there is a big one. We aren't talking about a few thousand in waste here...but MILLIONS of dollars a year.

Edited April 27, 201015 yr by Y2HH

Oh please, start naming the list of things you'd love to cut. I love hearing how cutting back on education spending or medicare or social security or whatever else you want to name is going to balance the budget forever, especially for the ones with dedicated funding streams. It's fun.

 

(I'm just going to assume you're educated enough that you won't fire off the canards of eliminating foreign aid and waste).

 

Oh no, you are perfectly right. Having guys surfing porn at the SEC is a great idea while the financial system crumbles. I know, it's government, so the spending it good. I can believe you actually believe that crap, but that is a totally different story.

Another great Californian example is the prison system, which is a gigantic, large, huge drain on the state's resources. Dramatically overcrowded, falling apart, hugely expensive. It'd be a great place to cut back on waste...waste like paying overtime for the guards, waste like hiring private companies to ship prisoners out of state, waste like all the other things that you have to do to manage a large, overcrowded prison system.

 

But...cutting the waste means you're required to do 1 of 2 things. Either you need to build more prisons so that you don't have to pay the guards you currently have huge overtime salaries to deal with the overcrowding at their location, or you need to imprison fewer people.

It's really easy to call stuff "Waste" if you want to get elected. It's really hard to deal with the political realities of cutting that waste.

 

This is actually a great point that you are totally missing. It isn't that there is waste, it is that it is way easier to act like it doesn't exist when you get in charge. Just because people wimp out when the get into office, doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

Besides if you really want an example, all you have to do is go look at the one thing I have been railing against for years, the financial regulation of this country. Billions of dollars a year are wasted in inefficiency, contradictory rules, repeat regulations, duplicate infrastructures, non-communications of information etc. It isn't even just the paying for it through the government issue, it is also the money in compliance costs of this ridiculous system that companies have to pay to support this inane structure.

But there's a point you're missing...there's always someone who loses when you cut back on that. Why do you think the financial regulatory system in this country is so backwards? Because GS and the like benefit hugely from having the system that way and keeping it that way.

But there's a point you're missing...there's always someone who loses when you cut back on that. Why do you think the financial regulatory system in this country is so backwards? Because GS and the like benefit hugely from having the system that way and keeping it that way.

 

This system has been in place long before the events you keep referring to. And no, by making the agencies actually work together, making the regulations work together, putting the infrastructure together... the only people who lose are the bureaucrats who got us into this mess in the first place by claiming to secure a system they had no ability, or seemingly interest in fixing. Companies would benefit way more simply from lower costs of doing business.

Companies would benefit way more simply from lower costs of doing business.

SOME companies.

SOME companies.

 

Any company or person that deals in any financial product what-so-ever. So everyone from your local bank, to your brokerages, to anyone who has a retirement account from work, would see lower costs.