The Dumb Masses Love Surprises

[rwarn17588]

Conan is spot on. . .

Welfare
Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid)
Food stamps
Unemployment benefits
Social Security

I would probably want to add a myriad of thousands of other programs both on the federal and state level, but those are the biggies.  The drill down is really amazing when you dig in. 

AFDC                           
Food Stamps                   
Supplemental Security Income   
Lower income housing asst.     
Earned Income Tax Credit       
Veterans medical care           
Stafford loans                 
Social Services (Title 20)                         
Low-rent public housing                                 
School Lunch                   
Pensions for needy veterans                 
Head Start                     
Food supplements, Women, infants and children
Training for disadvantaged youth and adults           
Low-income energy assistance   
Rural housing loans             
Indian Health Services           
Summer youth employment         
Maternal and child health       
JOBS and WIN                   
Job Corps                         
Child care block grant           
School Breakfast                 
Child care for AFDC                 
Housing interest reduction       
Child and adult care food program
"At risk" child care

So what would you do with these programs?

[Gaspar]

So what would you do with these programs?

Ahhh the loaded question I was waiting for.  It would be cruel and heartless to suspend programs designed to help the dependent.  I'm sure you would agree. . .right?

It's always been nearly impossible to suspend any government program once it has been established, unless you can provide and promote a superior alternative, but instead of seeking alternatives, we simply expand these programs to incorporate an ever increasing base of dependents.  Every year we add to the list and increase the cost by billions.  We turn more and more free people into wards of the state, and in turn loyal votes for the very programs that keep them imprisoned and well fed.  That is cruel and heartless.

To answer your question directly, so that you can get to your next anticipated statement, I don't know what we would do.  We've created a tragic situation.  I would certainly stop it's expansion.  The backbone of most of these projects was the purchase of a block of votes.  The wounded, handicapped, infirm, and insane will have to be cared for, that is our responsibility as a society.  But the enslaved will need to be emancipated and that will be painful, there's no getting around it.  It will take a long time, perhaps generations.  I doubt we are patient enough.

So what WILL happen?  The system will bankrupt, and the Band-Aid will be pulled.  Then everyone can point fingers, and no one accept responsibility. 

It's Regan's fault. It's Bushes fault.  It's Obama's fault.  Greenspan. Pelosi. Bernanke. Kennedy.

[rwarn17588]

Ahhh the loaded question I was waiting for.  It would be cruel and heartless to suspend programs designed to help the dependent.  I'm sure you would agree. . .right?

It's always been nearly impossible to suspend any government program once it has been established, unless you can provide and promote a superior alternative, but instead of seeking alternatives, we simply expand these programs to incorporate an ever increasing base of dependents.  Every year we add to the list and increase the cost by billions.  We turn more and more free people into wards of the state, and in turn loyal votes for the very programs that keep them imprisoned and well fed.  That is cruel and heartless.

To answer your question directly, so that you can get to your next anticipated statement, I don't know what we would do.  We've created a tragic situation.  I would certainly stop it's expansion.  The backbone of most of these projects was the purchase of a block of votes.  The wounded, handicapped, infirm, and insane will have to be cared for, that is our responsibility as a society.  But the enslaved will need to be emancipated and that will be painful, there's no getting around it.  It will take a long time, perhaps generations.  I doubt we are patient enough.

Guess what? I agree with you and your "freeze" solution. The entitlements that you described are indeed unsustainable, and a freeze of some sort would be humane and doable.

You have, however, a small bloc that want to eliminate these programs entirely and abruptly, which I am sure the American people won't tolerate. I was checking to see whether you had a sensible stance, or whether you were going to tilt at windmills.

And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.

But I do agree that there needs to be a gradual scale-back.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

[Gaspar]

And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.

I don't disagree, some programs produce positive results as long and you don't weigh them against the cost.  Head Start estimates are between $7,000 and $21,000 per child per year depending on what state and what study you look at.  While the result may be justified, the expense is completely  out of this world when compared to private alternatives.  These are simply things that government does not do well.

[Conan71]

Guess what? I agree with you and your "freeze" solution. The entitlements that you described are indeed unsustainable, and a freeze of some sort would be humane and doable.

You have, however, a small bloc that want to eliminate these programs entirely and abruptly, which I am sure the American people won't tolerate. I was checking to see whether you had a sensible stance, or whether you were going to tilt at windmills.

And I disagree partially with your admittedly general statement that these programs do not foster growth. I'd say Head Start and maternal child health have long-term benefits for people in this country. And I'm certainly not against safety-net programs until down-on-their-luck folks can get back on their feet.

But I do agree that there needs to be a gradual scale-back.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

There's no one in Congress who would ever start an initiative to abruptly end any entitlement programs.  It would be political suicide, aside from throwing the country into immediate turmoil.  Gaspar touched on one of the bigger fears many of us share who are against government healthcare reform:  once a federal program is started it's near impossible to stop it.  Government handouts become like crack in many ways- highly addictive and it takes away from productivity.

There are worthwhile programs: Student loans and grants, welfare to work programs, head-start, Job Corps, school lunch programs, social security retirement benefits, veteran benefits, and medicare.  There's others, those are just ones which come to mind directly.

There are people who seek to and who do abuse the aforementioned programs.  It's impossible to root out all the fraud and free-loaders, therein lies a lot of skepiticism I have about health care reform as well.  Frauds and hucksters will always be attracted to entitlement programs.  If the government tries to limit payment amounts per procedure, providers simply find ways to increase the number of billable procedures done on a patient to make up the difference.  It happens now under Medicare. 

Republicans claim to want small government, but they don't seem to have a clue what that looks like in reality, they are just as guilty as Democrats in the expansion of government.  Look at increases in domestic spending from 2001 to 2008 under President Bush- sheesh.  We are going to have to find ways to start scaling back the availability of social services and social programs to keep all the programs from coming crashing down when we finally can no longer afford the burden to keep them going.

I'd heard on my way into work this morning Moodys is mulling our debt rating.  If our rating starts to slip, our interest costs will sky-rocket.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/15/news/economy/moodys.sovereign.fortune/

[rwarn17588]

I'd heard on my way into work this morning Moodys is mulling our debt rating.  If our rating starts to slip, our interest costs will sky-rocket.

Whether Moody's is trustworthy is a whole 'nother matter. Moody's was dishing out "A" ratings right up until the brokerage houses and banks teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in 2008 when the housing boom went bust.

[rwarn17588]

There's no one in Congress who would ever start an initiative to abruptly end any entitlement programs.  It would be political suicide, aside from throwing the country into immediate turmoil.  Gaspar touched on one of the bigger fears many of us share who are against government healthcare reform:  once a federal program is started it's near impossible to stop it.  Government handouts become like crack in many ways- highly addictive and it takes away from productivity.

I understand the fear, but the skyrocketing cost of health care is already hurting U.S. productivity. It, too, is unsustainable on its current track.

[rwarn17588]

Republicans claim to want small government, but they don't seem to have a clue what that looks like in reality, they are just as guilty as Democrats in the expansion of government.  Look at increases in domestic spending from 2001 to 2008 under President Bush- sheesh.  We are going to have to find ways to start scaling back the availability of social services and social programs to keep all the programs from coming crashing down when we finally can no longer afford the burden to keep them going.

There's another way, too. Start chopping into defense spending. Talk about something that got bloated in a hurry ...

Regardless, some sort of tax increase is inevitable. The American public expects some levels of services from its government, and won't tolerate much of a cut. The Tea Partier a few months ago who held a sign that said: "Keep your government out of my Medicare" is indicative of that.

[Conan71]

I understand the fear, but the skyrocketing cost of health care is already hurting U.S. productivity. It, too, is unsustainable on its current track.

Much like you cannot abruptly halt social entitlement programs, you can't arbitrarily and abruptly cap costs on an industry without serious consequences.  Health care providers are opting out of Medicare as it is because they say Medicare reimbursement is a break-even or losing proposition.

I've also not read anything much beyond "we will get control of health care costs" other than generalities, have you?  I cannot seem to find specifics anywhere as to what this magic mechanism the government has other than vague generalities.  I honestly don't think anyone mulling a vote on the House "reform" bill has any idea the exact mechanism they are voting for by which health care costs will drop. 

Pardon my cynicism but this has far more to do with legacy-building than it does finding any real solutions that the American voter truly wants. 

[rwarn17588]

Pardon my cynicism but this has far more to do with legacy-building than it does finding any real solutions that the American voter truly wants. 

You're not excused from your cynicism. 

I think the portion of the bill that's going to have the biggest impact is the pre-existing conditions part. That part of the insurance industry has been so unfair and so sh*tty for so long, something was going to give eventually.

And giving 27 million more people health coverage is no small thing, either.

[nathanm]

It's impossible to root out all the fraud and free-loaders, therein lies a lot of skepiticism I have about health care reform as well.  Frauds and hucksters will always be attracted to entitlement programs.

You say that like frauds and hucksters don't take advantage of every pot of money, whether public or private.

[Gaspar]

CBO has revised estimates. . . Obamacare is now to exceed 1 Trillion and climbing.

The additional costs are coming from additional discretionary spending needed to build the huge burocracy.

"The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html#ixzz0nj5gprq5

I'm willing to bet that in another 6 months this figure will be around $250 Billion.  Anyone wanna bet? 

[Conan71]

What would have been the cost to simply put the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid?  Certainly we would not have needed a new massive bureaucracy to administrate 27 million new enrollees.  I can understand there would be a need for more manpower to handle the enrollment and claims processing, but what's the point in creating more costly ways of doing this? 

[Townsend]

You saw that this is, once again, someone's best guess.

Someone guessed and then it was spun in the way people wished it to be.

There will be more guesses and then it will be spun again.

No matter what is released, all that can be posted is guesses.

Once there is another administration and a different congress there will be more "quick, grab that guess and work it so it makes our side look better and their side look worse.  The masses won't understand it either."

[Gaspar]

What would have been the cost to simply put the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid? 

Around $340 billion at the current cost per enrollee in Medicare (between $7k and $16K per enrollee). 

The new system will spend over $20K per enrollee.

What a hoot! . . . and it will cost that YEARS before the benefits are administered. 

Heck, the machine will be more expensive than the product by the time the product is available. LOL!