Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Just another few hundred billiion dollars there... 64

Journal by damn_registrars
I mentioned before that the Health Insurance Industry wastes tens of billions of dollars annually of our money, directly. I would think that would bother people enough to want to attack that industry just out of that magnitude of waste. Yet I overlooked completely another giant waste from them, to the tune of an even larger pile of money.

Annually, the federal government spends Over 300 Billion dollars on insurance subsidies. They also lose out on a comparable amount of money that would otherwise be counted as income tax, due to the provision that makes health insurance pre-tax contributions untaxed.

But of course all this gets us one of the worst health care systems on the planet, for the largest cost anywhere. Clearly this is a great deal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Just another few hundred billiion dollars there... More

Just another few hundred billiion dollars there...

Comments Filter:
  • Well, there is no risk of the GOPatsies doing anything about it.

    I happen to think that Gaetz blew the lid off the sheer uselessness of Congress.

    Ironically, Gaetz claimed to champion a return to "regular order", which has not actually been seen in budgeting circles since Bush43.

    The empirical results suggest that Continuing Resolutions and automatic spending hikes ARE the "regular order".

    The fools are those demanding that our system still mean something.

    Running on actually reforming health care is a

    • Running on actually reforming health care is a no-brainer.

      I think you meant non-starter there. You might as well run on repealing the law of gravity.

      Well, there is no risk of the GOPatsies doing anything about it.

      Your friends from Your Team never wanted to do anything about health care. The most conservative reform that could have happened already happened under President Lawnchair, and since then all they've wanted to do is pass the bill again with someone else's name on it so they can take more credit for it. There is indeed no chance of Your Team ever fixing this hopeless mess, because they don't want to fix it.

      Tha

      • Running on actually reforming health care is a no-brainer.

        I think you meant non-starter there.

        While not disagreeing with you, I submit that if we lack candidates running on fresh approaches, then our politics truly are just so much show.

        • I submit that if we lack candidates running on fresh approaches...

          it's only because the voters fail to nominate them. We have a system in place to correct that

          then our politics truly are just so much show.

          Without making the effort to prove otherwise, it only means you have denied your responsibility for your part in the charade. Our politics is a show of reflection, a perfect mirror of any given dysfunctional family unit.

        • While not disagreeing with you, I submit that if we lack candidates running on fresh approaches, then our politics truly are just so much show.

          It's awfully hard to do the right thing when doing the wrong thing is heavily rewarded.

          • Restated: incentives matter. There hasn't been any incentive to stabilize government spending. Short of a complete meltdown, I don't see any, either.

            • Wrong again... incentives don't matter, well, maybe in animal studies. But for humans, the response is what matters, quantifying one's character. We needn't care about the bribe or who offers, only the person that takes it. Hmm.. reminds me of an ancient parable.. you should know it

              • I submit that we're having two distinct conversations here. Incentives matter, especially in the aggregate. If almost everyone is going above the speed limit, you will be incentivized to move with traffic.

                Character matters for the individual, in particular, when one thinks no one is observing. Whether one is virtuous or a thug comes out in isolation.

                • "Incentives" is an excuse to rationalize bad choices. Automobile traffic is one thing, voting is a different thing.

                  Whether one is virtuous or a thug comes out in isolation.

                  On the contrary, it is expressed in and by the crowd, where the blame is so conveniently placed to "absolve" the individuals

            • There hasn't been any incentive to stabilize government spending.

              That is orthogonal to correcting the disaster that is our health care system. It is absolutely possible to balance a government budget and have a single payer health care system; as every government with a balanced budget will show you.

              • I just don't worship at the church of single payer. States should do that if interested, and interested parties gather in them.

                • I just don't worship at the church of single payer.

                  Your Team tells you that you should oppose it, and so dutifully you do so. We've gone over the numbers and there is no logical reason to oppose a single payer system. Your opposition is purely based on allegiance and faith.

                  • The anecdotal evidence from around the globe is that government control of health care amounts to a soft form of slavery.

                    What I want to see is a menu of choices, where those with "allegiance and faith" to the notion can go enjoy it.

                    Those who disdain the concept should remain free to avoid it.

                    What fascinates me is that you cannot seem to abide freedom to choose.

    • Sorry, voter opinions are no longer relevant.

      Sorry, you are wrong, and you know why

      • Sorry, voter opinions are no longer relevant.

        Sorry, you are wrong, and you know why

        It's hard to argue against that when his Team allows elected officials to choose their voters, and takes great strides to ensure the opposite never happens.

        • If you think "allows elected officials to choose their voters" occurs on only one side of the aisle, then you probably bought the steaming lie that the Israelis launched the rocket that hit (around) the hospital early this week.
          • I won't - nor have I ever - claim that the less conservative party is in some way perfect. However can you point to a jerrymandering case against them currently? Jerrymandering is a tactic that your team rather enthusiastically embraces to hold on to power.

            lie that the Israelis launched the rocket that hit (around) the hospital early this week.

            I'm on the fence on that one. These rockets are not as precise as a lot of other weapons. I don't expect the Israelis would have intentionally targeted a hospital, but they could have well hit it by accident. Or it could have been Hezbollah. Or ther

            • I mean, there's a whole page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

              The argument that either party will fall short of maximizing its advantage is specious.

              Back over on the "incentives matter" thread, unless and until the rewards for screwing the opposition as hard as possible are changed, the screwings will continue.

              Occasionally, some bleatings about "institutional preservation" are heard, particularly in the Senate.

              What could be done is some sort of cramdown, where an al

              • where an algorithm for redistricting is formally implemented

                by?

                it's all poker, with the voters as pokees.

                *sigh* Flashing the victim card still doesn't buy absolution. Voters are in charge, responsible for their choices.

                • Voters are in charge, responsible for their choices.

                  It is in the same breath literally true that the entire internet is a sea of binary. It's all 1s and 0s.

                  Everything on top of that is just layers of abstraction and obfuscation.

                  • *sigh* the usual runaround... I'm more interested in who is going to "formally implement" your algorithm

                    • Well, the algorithm would require copious discussion, buy-in, and probably an amendment to make it work.

                      Likely the states are on the hook to have it implemented, presumably in public repositories, with lots of visibility for the logic.

                    • Anybody on the ballot that's not otherwise crazy?

                    • Well, I wish that the GOPatsies were useful for more than assuming the position for the Democrats.

                      With the mail-in ballots, you understand that we essentially all live in Chicago now?

                      I'm really too old to foment revolution.

                    • I wish that the GOPatsies were useful for more than assuming the position for the Democrats.

                      Dems do the same for the GOP, they are a team, remember? Might not win if they don't, reelection is the goal

                      With the mail-in ballots...

                      Never said I was for that. I have already spelled what will work

                    • Especially for Presidential contests, enough ballots will be appeared in the correct precincts to support desired outcomes.

                    • Just stay with the herd, you'll be fine

                    • Again, I'm not clear that the actual elections on Election Day are decisive, anymore.

                    • They couldn't be more so.. over 98% vote for the ruling party and its charade. How much more decisive do you want?

                    • I don't think that charade/decisive go together in this context.

                    • Yes, well, you do seem to have a bit of trouble with putting 2 and 2 together

                    • Well, not everyone can approach your sublime coolness, alas. Still, one must strive.

                    • :-) The power of mere observation is wondrous,you should try it some time...

                    • Yep, wrote a whole essay built on decades thereof. Outstanding stuff, if I'm being humble and honest.

        • You share the same "team" with the same goal.

      • As with the equivocation on Israel/Palestine, you're irrefutably correct, somewhere out in geosynchronous orbit. That is: at such a high level of abstraction as to be practically moot.

        • The abstractions are all yours, blocking your view of the fundamentals. Please stop denying the system is our/your creation. Voters are in charge, their opinion is loud and clear, their silence is deafening

          • I've never denied that I'm within the system. Look: this is the Roman alphabet, English language, and a U.S. web site.

            "Voters are in charge", but you have also been heard to clamor "money is power".

            Your standard move is to pretend that no tension exists between "voters are in charge" and "money is power", so I shall continue to chuckle at you.

            • Laugh it up.. I never said that the voters aren't effected by money, but it's still their choice. They are in charge. And I said wealth is power, it is one, a singularity. Money is how you keep score

              • And, again: I've never disagreed with you. What you say is a major component of the whole picture. At least it was, until mail-in ballots started throwing election security out the window. But I quibble.

                My main complaint is that, once you're operating at a level above High School Class President, other important details precipitate out.

                You're welcome to label reality as "obfuscation" and "excuses" all you like.

                Our system was crafted with the idea that everyone actually put time into it.

                Representativ

                • To chant simplistically "it's still their choice" when we've given up declaring war, and just shovel money at Neo-con projects as though there were no lives at stake, is to miss the point.

                  No, it is the point, it points out how you pass blame, it's why we have a "purely decorative Congress", pure tribalism in the voting booth

                  the idea that everyone take their turn at the helm...

                  never existed. Politics has always been a business, little changed with Wilson.

                  At this point, liquidating opposition candidates isn't far-fetched.

                  What is that supposed to mean? Besides, where are these "opposition candidates"?

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close