This got me thinking, what am I actually paying for and does it make any sense? A few things I remembered from past conversations:
- Much of the military spend is actually retirement, health, etc payments. It is an obligation like Social Security.
- If the USA did not play "Global Policeman", the USA GDP would decline due to increased Global unrest. (ie look what happens when gas prices go up $1/gal...)
- Most of the Agricultural subsidy goes for food programs, not farmers.
Then again, given the variation between these sources... I may need to study this for the rest of the year and reconsider that statement !!! Besides ... is it better to pull Education Excellence by funding the Military, NASA, Research, etc than trying to "push it" by funding academic personnel for no clear reason? (ie Atlas Shrugged)
What are your thoughts regarding our spending priorities? Please discuss any area of personal interest... Be it Military, Healthcare, Education, Welfare, etc.... Any "better links I should add?
By the way, I am not planning on moving or crashing a plane.(WSJ) So it looks like I'll keep paying either way....
US Government Spending
Visual Economics
Nation Master
Congressional Budget Office Outlook PDF
Congressional Budget Office
White House Budget
Forex Budget Explained
Smarter Spend
Census Statistical Abstract
14 comments:
I notice Speed has an annoying habit of closing comments just as the conversation gets going. Perhaps understandable, since we seem to keep coming back to the same old song, different verse, but I /like/ that song. :-)
As for spending priorities, recognize that: 1) The US government is supposed to have no role in education, and no budget for it. Republicans some time ago tried to eliminate the DOE, except for college student loans. (note that these are "vouchers" where the students get to choose the schools, even religious ones) 2) the vast majority of the K-12 spending in particular is done by state governments. 3) You once again fall into the trap of believing the amount spent has anything whatsoever to do with results achieved. It is PROVEN false! 4) for the vast majority of us, it isn't so much the nominal purpose of the spending, but that the spending is so excessive and so inefficient. I'm happy to pay to have our kids educated-- they really are our future-- but why do we pay twice what other countries do, and then come in next to last in international testing?
J. Ewing
Thank You for using my blog :)
Good to know someone is reading it.
"why" American citizens have to pay for things they do not actively support?
Because we don't live under a system of government like that of pre-war Poland where a unanimous vote was required for the legislature to do anything.
Give--I agree with you on military. I don't particularly like how much of our federal budget funds wars, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize it's not going to change, so I'm not going to battle that windmill.
Ag budget, however. . . . it's crazy that so much goes to subsidizing food that's essentially crap. I'm fine with giving more to farmers in order to change the model for producing food in this country--less mass produced corn/soybeans/beef/pork/chicken and more small producers of better quality food that helps the economy and creates a healthier population with fewer diseases. I grew up on a grain/hog farm, so I'm not predisposed to hate on farmers, but the system has gotten way out of whack and needs a serious retooling.
J--I agree on the Speed post. We were getting close to maybe possibly seeing some kind of real conversation. I'm sure we'll pick it up on a later discussion. I think I see the health care debate much how you see the education debate. Our health care system is entirely broken and we're getting a wretched return on our huge investment--I'm in favor of turning out the big HMO/insurance/pharma companies and focusing on what works in other countries. Capitalism is failing us miserably in that area.
--Annie
If you could point to one country in which socialized medicine works as well as the "broken" SEMI-capitalist system we have in the US, I might agree. Remember that over 50% of health care is now delivered by government programs, under government rules, and that the rate of cost increase is HIGHER for those programs than for private insurers, while the quality of care is lower. There are excellent reasons why this should be so, that need not be delved into here, but that exact same situation applies, though moreso, to public education, where government-run schools own about 90% of the K-12 market.
And just like health care, I don't mind paying for it, so long as quality is high and costs are low. If government schools could actually do that, they would have done it by now. Don't tell me "they're improving." My grandkids will be collecting Medicare (if it is still available as something other than an aspirin dispensary) by the time it gets good enough.
J. Ewing
J,
We are spending twice what other countries do and coming in last?
Give us some data to back that claim up. Preferably a birth through HS equivalent cost per child in some std currency unit. I mean teaching in China should be really inexpensive given their typical wage... This is why all my furniture seems to be built there.
Kevin,
You are welcome and thanks for the information. Us bloggers need to stick together.
Annie,
I guess that was my point, little of the Ag Budget actually goes to subsidizing farmers. Most of it goes to funding the system and subsidizing the food budgets of kids and poor folk.
As for "Corporate" and large scale farmers, that seems to be the only way to be cost effective. Given the high cost of land, equipment, etc, they work on small margins and large volumes.
I seriously thought of taking over the family farm. Unfortunately it just does not pay as well as my corporate job. Or if it does, you don't see the income until you are ready to retire. It's kind of like putting 70% of your income into your 401K for all of your working years...
As for what farmer's grow. They grow what us consumer's use and will pay for. The only way to change that is to start eating healthier.
I forgot one last point, some folks think the farm subsidy is a gift to the farmers. The reality is that is a Governmental Supply and Land Use control system. Most farmers I know actually dislike it because it screws with the markets, etc. However most will not turn down the offer.
J--you're wondering where socialized medicine works better? Well, pretty much everywhere.
Different systems, but the others socialized to varying degrees:
Do you want to talk GDP? As of 2007US spends 16%
UK spends 8.4%
Norway spends 8.9%
Canada spends 10.1%.
Or do you want to look at it by per capita spending?
US spends $7290
UK spends $2992
Norway spends $4763
Canada spends $3895
How about obesity (sorry, no stats on those same nations, but here's a sampling)?
US has 63%
Switzerland 37%
Italy has 45%
Infant mortality
US has 6.7%
UK has 5.0%
Norway has 3.1%
Canada has 5.0%
Or life expectancy?
US is 78.1 years
UK is 79.5 years
Norway is 80.6 years
Canada is 80.7 years
If you're interested in other comparisons, or different countries, I'm happy to discuss that. But virtually every public health organization--domestic or international--comes up with the same trends. We spend more, and we're less healthy. I'm interested if you different stats on those measurements.
As for me, I'm in a different camp than you with wanting "cost is low, quality is high". In this case, I'm happy for cost is high, quality is high. I can't think of money much better spent. Rather, here in the US, we have cost is high, quality is low. Bummer, that.
Give--
The big producers are effecient insofar as they do produce large volumes at comparitively low costs. But what they produce is largely devoid of nutrition, compared to what our bodies need, which is fresh fruits and vegetables, not corn. Or at least not nearly as much corn. As Michael Pollan says--"Eat food, mostly plants, not too much". It will be hard and take a long time, but somehow we need to shift our production model to different crops on different scales. Our population growth and shifts mean we can't do it the way we did it back in the 'golden age' of the 40/50/60s, but I believe it can be done--especially in regions with fertile soil and decent growing seasons. Not sure how it can work in arid/desert regions or extremely densely populated areas (East Coast). But a step in the right direction would be to shift some of the grain price supports, which go to the Cargills of the world, to startup loan programs and marketing training for small farmers. We need the jobs desperately, so it would be killing two birds with one stone.
--Annie
Annie,
Comparisons of health care systems are very difficult, because nothing is apples to apples. For example, there are several countries where infant mortality is better than in the US, but they do not count a child as an "infant" unless it is brought to term, while we include all the preemies.
Life expectancy, after allowing for the US higher rate of self-inflicted and accidental death, is as good or better than most. Cancer survival rates are better. And if you want to consider obesity a health problem, we've got a big one, but it isn't because our health care is too expensive.
As for the cost, Mayo health economists believe that as much as 50% of current costs are CAUSED by government interference in the health care marketplace. Remove that, and we're the envy of the world. Increase it, and you, too, could be waiting 10 years for a mammogram that might detect the breast cancer that will kill you in 5 years.
Again, it's not a matter of priorities, but of what is the proper way to spend the necessary amount, and who spends it. Is there any reason to believe that government can, by some magic heretofore unseen, give more care, of better quality, to more people, and for less total cost than we now collectively spend?
There's an old adage that "you get what you pay for." And if government (which has no money) pays, you don't get at all.
J. Ewing
I don't know about all of Europe, however I don't think I want to get a serious illness in England, France or Italy. The company I work for transfers personnel all over the world. The stories these folks tell after spending a few years in these countries with their kids are very disturbing.
The simple rule was, if it looks potentially serious. Just book a flight to the USA and they'll work out the expenses later.
One was a case of gestational diabetes that was not diagnosed until late. One was an appendix that the doctors were failing to diagnose.
A less serious one was where the doc sat with the family talking while the nurse spent almost an hour looking for a blood pressure cuff and a stethoscope. Apparently these high tech devices were not readily available.
Maybe this is why people eat healthier in Europe. A deep desire to avoid the medical establishment. Or the unhealthy folks have been weeded out during their visits...
Therefore Americans are less healthy because we can and do save anyone... What a strange thought... Maybe if more people don't make it out of the hospital, we would exercise more and eat better !!!!
Gentlemen, I'm just not buying the idea that we're a healthy nation by any measure. If you're seriously sick and happen to have very good insurance and plenty of money for copays and out of pocket, you can probably get well. I'll give you that. But that doesn't measure our health any more than a good body shop down the road is tied to having a well-maintained vehicle.
But as the stats I included hint at, there is virtually no measurement of any recognized, well-run socialized system where we come even close. And yes, I include things like obesity and HPB, diabetes, etc in that evaluation--other countries do much much better at *health* care. We have the big medical centers that can deliver good *sick* care.
I heard former Sen. Dave Durenberger speak about this--he did a good bit with health care when he was in the senate and now serves on the National Institute for Health Policy. He was the first one who ever made it clear to me how very broken our system is, and how much we pay for very poor health care (hey, I went to hear a Republican! Do I get extra credit for that?). If you ever get a chance, he's very astute and very sensible about what is necessary and what is realistic.
Give, I'm not particularly convinced by your examples of poor health care regarding GD and appendix misdiagnosis abroad, as I've know folks who have had both of those misdiagnosed right in the US. We have some fantastic doctors here, but we also have rotten ones. I wonder if language/culture could be an issue in the situations you cite, as far as coming home for any serious illness? Anecdotal, but I have good friends who live in UK, Norway, Canada, and acquaintences several other countries with socialized medicine and none are even moderately envious of the health care in the US.
J, you ask "Is there any reason to believe that government can, by some magic heretofore unseen, give more care, of better quality, to more people, and for less total cost than we now collectively spend?" I emphatically say--YES. By modeling a new system after ones that are time tested and proven--in both quality of health and in dollars spent--we can do much better for all our citizens.
If you really want to get deep in the weeds, sift through the stats here. Comparisons in virtually every facet of health care is teased apart by country, and in almost every single measure, we kinda suck. http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html
--Annie
You claim we can treat more people better for less money by "changing our system." Since our federal and state governments now control over 50% of all health care spending, don't you think they would have fundamentally changed their operation, and worked that miracle by now? It's the same with the schools. We keep giving them more and more money, but results do not substantially improve except in the spending of more money. Don't you think if government knew how to improve education, they would have done it by now rather than sacrificing a whole generation of poor kids to the cruelty of a public school education? You simply can't explain away the fact that competition makes things generally better, because patients and parents can choose among alternatives. No monopoly, oligopoly or near-monopoly provides better service at lower cost until forced to do so, by real competition.
Take the famous example of lasik eye surgery. In the time I've been considering it, quality has gone way up-- less than .06% failure to achieve 20/20, according to the last estimate I had-- and the cost has dropped from $4000 per eye to as little as $500 for both. It's almost never been covered by any form of insurance, public or private. It's pure competitive free market. Likewise, look at the national spelling bee. There was talk of banning homeschooled kids because they kept winning, year after year. Some private schools find a competitive advantage in being able to move public school kids' achievement up 2, 3 and even 4 grades in a single year. When scholarships to private schools are offered to poor inner-city kids by philanthropic organizations, "those people" line up, sometimes 1000:1, to get that better educational opportunity for their kids. Those parents are involved, they care, and their kids will benefit greatly. All they need is for public schools to allow competition, and then to compete. Publics claim to be doing the best that can be done, but results say differently.
That's why international statistics, which I do not have the patience to scrutinize, are so misleading. Public schools constantly complain that the international math and science testing-- TIMSS- is wrong in showing the US roughly next to last, because we have more kids taking the test, whereas other countries sidetrack some students into vocational or other tracks. Health statistics, as I've explained, are likewise skewed without a thorough and logical explanation as to WHY. The US murder, accident, and suicide rate, for example, as well as our luxurious, sedentary and obese lifestyles, are simply NOT caused by our health care delivery system, and any measures of health are therefore skewed against the US. It may even work against us that, when these victims land in hospital, we tend to keep them alive better, thus making "died in hospital" go up and "death by accident" go down. Death was by gunshot, not by lack of single-payer health insurance.
In short, you and your statistics are claiming causation because of correlation, and you can't do that. That's what gets us in global warming trouble-- that a rise in CO2 "correlates" with a rise in temperature. Sometimes. But that does not SAY that CO2 causes warming, nor does it even begin to say that human CO2 is the cause, nor does it have any possibility to predict a future catastrophe based on these flimsiest of assumptions. But if you can explain WHY something occurs, you don't need statistics. We know monopolies don't work and competition does. Anything else is going backwards.
J. Ewing
Oh I forgot another interesting Italian story. A woman that lived near one of my friends was diagnosed with a somewhat advanced cancer. She was ~60 and an Italian.
Well, apparently if the prognosis looks poor, they don't try... They pay an amount for you to finish out your days.
Chopping those high dollar, low return procedure out of the USA healthcare budget would probably do wonders for the USA Health care bill. I am not sure we are ready to give up on folks that easy.
Also, I am pretty sure language was not an issue in the England examples... Though it could be at times in other countries.
Post a Comment