BF2S Forums I'm Not Your ATM

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Very little of our overseas presence is needed.  For example, there really is no need for us to remain in Japan or most of Europe.

OK. That's different. That's targeted cuts to the military OCONUS. But you mentioned "scattered across so many states", implying a CONUS-based cut.

Well, most major military cuts involve the closing of bases in the U.S. in addition to ones abroad.

Not necessarily. In order to cut to the levels you propose, personnel would have to be dramatically reduced, along with some existing programs and pretty much all programs in acquisition. Infrastructure is remarkably cheap in comparison and actually provides capital vice expense.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But then we would lose the basic fabric of what it is to be America. It would change/eliminate the Constitution. Cutting Medicare and SS wouldn't change the Constitution at all.

It wouldn't change the Constitution, but ending our most of our social programs would dramatically worsen our overall standard of living, which, in all honesty, is worse than changing the Constitution.

How would eliminating a large portion of spending on a sector of the population who's standard of living is already low and are a net expense vice contributor to the overall economy possibly lower overall standard of living? They wouldn't be around any more to continue to be an expense, so relative contributions vs expenses would go up, increasing standard of living.

Turquoise wrote:

Granted, I have nothing against getting rid of SS.  That's one of the few programs where we're better off without it.

That seems to be at odds with your views of governmental responsibility.

[disclaimer]I in no way advocate letting the old and sick die off for economic benefit. I'm simply following your defense spending cuts logic on the biggest portions of our budget.[/disclaimer]

FEOS wrote:

[disclaimer]I in no way advocate letting the old and sick die off for economic benefit. I'm simply following your defense spending cuts logic on the biggest portions of our budget.[/disclaimer]

Our government is trying to reduce that cost by legislating ways for people to afford their own retirements. Successfully I might add, for the 20 odd years its been around.

FEOS wrote:

Not necessarily. In order to cut to the levels you propose, personnel would have to be dramatically reduced, along with some existing programs and pretty much all programs in acquisition. Infrastructure is remarkably cheap in comparison and actually provides capital vice expense.

Social programs are infrastructure too, like education as well.

FEOS wrote:

How would eliminating a large portion of spending on a sector of the population who's standard of living is already low and are a net expense vice contributor to the overall economy possibly lower overall standard of living? They wouldn't be around any more to continue to be an expense, so relative contributions vs expenses would go up, increasing standard of living.

That's assuming they don't revolt when they get desperate.  If you created a massive underclass desperate for resources by removing all social safety nets, you'd have yourself a class war with an armed populace.

That would be a lower standard of living due to violence and chaos.

FEOS wrote:

[disclaimer]I in no way advocate letting the old and sick die off for economic benefit. I'm simply following your defense spending cuts logic on the biggest portions of our budget.[/disclaimer]

The difference is that people laid off from the military aren't usually as desperate as the chronically unemployed.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's clear you don't understand how the system here works.

The US healthcare providers pay the same $5000 for the pacemaker. The supplier just has to charge $35000 for it in order to get the $5000 due to the ridiculously low "reasonable" payment rates from insurers.

There is a HUGE difference between what is billed and what is actually paid.

Would be interesting to see which of those figures (billed or paid) is used in the healthcare debates.

That's one way of looking at it.  The other is noticing how much less other countries pay for items because of government regulations and how much companies can charge the uninsured when government doesn't regulate the market as much.

The regulation of the industry is (imhbco) the big difference.

Turquoise wrote:

Hospitals are often discount heavy as a marketing measure.  If they quote you a ridiculously high price and then give you several discounts to lower the price, you don't feel quite as raped (even when you still are).

It's kind of like car salesmen, but that's the American Way.

I disagree with this. Some niche markets may do that (like elective surgeries such as Lasik), but by and large, an exorbitant amount is charged in order to recoup something close to the actual cost because of the ridiculously low payment rates--payment rates whose precedent is largely set by the government with their "acceptable charges" in Medicare/Medicaid.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not necessarily. In order to cut to the levels you propose, personnel would have to be dramatically reduced, along with some existing programs and pretty much all programs in acquisition. Infrastructure is remarkably cheap in comparison and actually provides capital vice expense.

Social programs are infrastructure too, like education as well.

I'm talking about real property. Real property infrastructure (capital) is remarkably cheap. The sustainment tail is relatively small in comparison to the social programs you are describing.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How would eliminating a large portion of spending on a sector of the population who's standard of living is already low and are a net expense vice contributor to the overall economy possibly lower overall standard of living? They wouldn't be around any more to continue to be an expense, so relative contributions vs expenses would go up, increasing standard of living.

That's assuming they don't revolt when they get desperate.  If you created a massive underclass desperate for resources by removing all social safety nets, you'd have yourself a class war with an armed populace.

That would be a lower standard of living due to violence and chaos.

Doesn't matter if they revolt. They can't do anything. They are old and sick. Feeble. What are they going to do, pull their tissues out of their shirtsleeves and throw them at us?

   

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

[disclaimer]I in no way advocate letting the old and sick die off for economic benefit. I'm simply following your defense spending cuts logic on the biggest portions of our budget.[/disclaimer]

The difference is that people laid off from the military aren't usually as desperate as the chronically unemployed.

Talking about two completely different things. Medicare and SS =/= unemployment benefits...which are actually State-managed programs, not Federal. We're talking about Federal budget issues, not State.

So that brings up another point: You cut defense the amount you are advocating, and you basically put an unfunded mandate on the States to pay for the unemployment benefits for those people until they can find other jobs. Not the same with cutting Medicare/SS.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I disagree with this. Some niche markets may do that (like elective surgeries such as Lasik), but by and large, an exorbitant amount is charged in order to recoup something close to the actual cost because of the ridiculously low payment rates--payment rates whose precedent is largely set by the government with their "acceptable charges" in Medicare/Medicaid.

Then why don't we set up something like France's system, where exorbitant sums aren't charged, and payments by the government cover actual costs?

Because that would require competence on the part of our government.

/thread

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Doesn't matter if they revolt. They can't do anything. They are old and sick. Feeble. What are they going to do, pull their tissues out of their shirtsleeves and throw them at us?

I thought you were suggesting we end welfare too.

It's a huge expenditure (roughly 50+% of the budget) that, if we stop funding it, will cease to be a needed expenditure in the future (they'll die off rapidly). Just using the same logic you did for defense spending...it's a big piece of the budget, so cut it drastically just because it's there.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Talking about two completely different things. Medicare and SS =/= unemployment benefits...which are actually State-managed programs, not Federal. We're talking about Federal budget issues, not State.

So that brings up another point: You cut defense the amount you are advocating, and you basically put an unfunded mandate on the States to pay for the unemployment benefits for those people until they can find other jobs. Not the same with cutting Medicare/SS.

Well, if you're in support of cutting Medicare, you should explain that to the GOP.  They apparently aren't.

I'm not. I'm using your logic for cutting defense (a power clearly delineated to the federal government by the Constitution) in the federal budget in preference for health care (NOT a power clearly delineated to the federal government by the Constitution and thus given to the States) in the federal budget and turning it around.

Using a hacksaw approach without thought simply because the budgetary wedge is there doesn't help, either.