Political Roundtable Part XIII

[tontoz]

Yet our funding for solving these problems doesn't line up. This is a fact.

Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

We will all have health problems and die. No amount of money can change that. In fact an argument can be made that we are spending too much money keeping people alive in their last years.

My mom is in her 70s and has been very active all her life. Maybe 5 years ago she had a rough operation for lung cancer which she got through ok. She was still able to do physical work around the house and yard. Then she fell and broke her arm, went through 2 separate sessions of proton therapy (similar to radiation), had an operation for a benign brain tumor, fell and broke her hip, and is currently taking chemo pills.

She told me one day that she was hoarding pain pills because she didn't want to go through that long, ugly process that many go through in their last years of life. When it gets to the point where she doesn't feel like going on she will just check out.

[Zonkerbl]

Yet our funding for solving these problems doesn't line up. This is a fact.

Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

We will all have health problems and die. No amount of money can change that. In fact an argument can be made that we are spending too much money keeping people alive in their last years.

My mom is in her 70s and has been very active all her life. Maybe 5 years ago she had a rough operation for lung cancer which she got through ok. She was still able to do physical work around the house and yard. Then she fell and broke her arm, went through 2 separate sessions of proton therapy (similar to radiation), had an operation for a benign brain tumor, fell and broke her hip, and is currently taking chemo pills.

She told me one day that she was hoarding pain pills because she didn't want to go through that long, ugly process that many go through in their last years of life. When it gets to the point where she doesn't feel like going on she will just check out.

Well that applies equally to terrorism - it's not a problem you solve by throwing money at it. Nevertheless there is some, albeit limited, benefit to directing resources to these problems and we have to decide what is the best use of our money - addressing health problems or addressing terrorism? Guns or butter? It's one of the reasons we in the economics biz try to make introductory economics classes mandatory for every college student. We can't just ignore these choices, no matter how painful it is to think about it.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Yeah, I don't know how we can characterize our foreign policy as successful over the last 3 Administrations ~25 years. I would say all of the Administrations had some successes but more failures than successes (Rwanda, Iraq, Syria). Obama said we shouldn't be the world's policeman and should do our own country building. That mantra has momentum and was essentially parroted by Trump. In both cases it got them elected. The next presidential candidates will do more of the same (my guess is it will happen on both sides of the aisle).

I see us as beginning to pull pack out international military forces, beginning to rollback some of our funding for the UN, World Bank, etc. and beginning to concentrate on our borders and self-defense. And I think we MUST do this based upon our financial foundation.

Our deficit is 434B our defense spending is 634B - eventually we are going to have to cut that.

I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for those that want us to continue to increase our entitlement spending and continue to be a player on the world stage, it just isn't going to happen. I think Trump is front and center on this.

[sfam]

Yet our funding for solving these problems doesn't line up. This is a fact.

Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

We will all have health problems and die. No amount of money can change that. In fact an argument can be made that we are spending too much money keeping people alive in their last years.

My mom is in her 70s and has been very active all her life. Maybe 5 years ago she had a rough operation for lung cancer which she got through ok. She was still able to do physical work around the house and yard. Then she fell and broke her arm, went through 2 separate sessions of proton therapy (similar to radiation), had an operation for a benign brain tumor, fell and broke her hip, and is currently taking chemo pills.

She told me one day that she was hoarding pain pills because she didn't want to go through that long, ugly process that many go through in their last years of life. When it gets to the point where she doesn't feel like going on she will just check out.

I have a 51 year old cousin in Indiana that has already suffered multiple heart attacks. She cannot afford insurance because Indiana never took the Medicaid funding. It is likely she will die in the next few years because of it. Her chances of dying far earlier than she should have due to the lack of adequate health care is a near certainty. Most people know people like this, many even have family members.

Buying more air craft carriers isn't going to help my cousin, neither, incidentally, will it help prevent violent extremism.

[tontoz]

Yet our funding for solving these problems doesn't line up. This is a fact.

Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

We will all have health problems and die. No amount of money can change that. In fact an argument can be made that we are spending too much money keeping people alive in their last years.

My mom is in her 70s and has been very active all her life. Maybe 5 years ago she had a rough operation for lung cancer which she got through ok. She was still able to do physical work around the house and yard. Then she fell and broke her arm, went through 2 separate sessions of proton therapy (similar to radiation), had an operation for a benign brain tumor, fell and broke her hip, and is currently taking chemo pills.

She told me one day that she was hoarding pain pills because she didn't want to go through that long, ugly process that many go through in their last years of life. When it gets to the point where she doesn't feel like going on she will just check out.

Well that applies equally to terrorism - it's not a problem you solve by throwing money at it. Nevertheless there is some, albeit limited, benefit to directing resources to these problems and we have to decide what is the best use of our money - addressing health problems or addressing terrorism? Guns or butter? It's one of the reasons we in the economics biz try to make introductory economics classes mandatory for every college student. We can't just ignore these choices, no matter how painful it is to think about it.

We also can't ignore that we are spending money we don't have, kicking the can down the road to let future generations deal with the mess.

[DCZards]

That isn't exactly news since we all get health problems and die in the end.

A girl I knew in high school was on Pan Am flight 103. She was one of 270 killed before their time by Muslim terrorists. I don't think her family or the families of other victims would be that impressed with your post.

It's not about healthcare coverage versus fighting terrorism. We need to do both. But it is about priorities. And I'm much more interested in spending money on the health and well-being of American citizens than I am on fighting terrorism, especially since it's pretty obvious that more Americans are likely to die from preventable health problems than from terrorism.

It's quite flippant (and silly) of you to simply say "we all get health problems and die in the end." Sounds like you're saying why have healthcare coverage at all. Are you willing to give up your healthcare coverage and stop seeing doctors since "we all get health problems and die?"

BTW, a woman I graduated from high school with died on 9-11 in one of the Twin Towers. She worked for the NY-NJ Port Authority. I'm close friends with her sister and her sister's husband, and I have dinner with them regularly when I'm in NYC. I know very well the pain of losing a friend and loved one to terrorism.

[sfam]

Yeah, I don't know how we can characterize our foreign policy as successful over the last 3 Administrations ~25 years. I would say all of the Administrations had some successes but more failures than successes (Rwanda, Iraq, Syria). Obama said we shouldn't be the world's policeman and should do our own country building. That mantra has momentum and was essentially parroted by Trump. In both cases it got them elected. The next presidential candidates will do more of the same (my guess is it will happen on both sides of the aisle).

I see us as beginning to pull pack out international military forces, beginning to rollback some of our funding for the UN, World Bank, etc. and beginning to concentrate on our borders and self-defense. And I think we MUST do this based upon our financial foundation.

Our deficit is 434B our defense spending is 634B - eventually we are going to have to cut that.

I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for those that want us to continue to increase our entitlement spending and continue to be a player on the world stage, it just isn't going to happen. I think Trump is front and center on this.

If Trump was cutting defense spending, as he absolutely should be doing, and talking about realistic ways of addressing entitlements I would agree with you. He's not. He's raising defense spending, cutting the safety net outside of entitlements and is doing nothing to address entitlement spending. Just today his Secretary of State is floating the prospect of going to war with North Korea.

He's not shifting toward the US away from the world, he's doubling down on very expensive hard power while reducing the incredibly cheap soft power options - the very thing that works best against violent extremism.

[dckingsfan]

Yeah, I don't know how we can characterize our foreign policy as successful over the last 3 Administrations ~25 years. I would say all of the Administrations had some successes but more failures than successes (Rwanda, Iraq, Syria). Obama said we shouldn't be the world's policeman and should do our own country building. That mantra has momentum and was essentially parroted by Trump. In both cases it got them elected. The next presidential candidates will do more of the same (my guess is it will happen on both sides of the aisle).

I see us as beginning to pull pack out international military forces, beginning to rollback some of our funding for the UN, World Bank, etc. and beginning to concentrate on our borders and self-defense. And I think we MUST do this based upon our financial foundation.

Our deficit is 434B our defense spending is 634B - eventually we are going to have to cut that.

I think there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for those that want us to continue to increase our entitlement spending and continue to be a player on the world stage, it just isn't going to happen. I think Trump is front and center on this.

If Trump was cutting defense spending, as he absolutely should be doing, and talking about realistic ways of addressing entitlements I would agree with you. He's not. He's raising defense spending, cutting the safety net outside of entitlements and is doing nothing to address entitlement spending. Just today his Secretary of State is floating the prospect of going to war with North Korea.

He's not shifting toward the US away from the world, he's doubling down on very expensive hard power while reducing the incredibly cheap soft power options - the very thing that works best against violent extremism.

Front and center on the cognitive dissonance aspect. Well, at least as much as anything troubles our current POTUS.

[Zonkerbl]

Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.

We will all have health problems and die. No amount of money can change that. In fact an argument can be made that we are spending too much money keeping people alive in their last years.

My mom is in her 70s and has been very active all her life. Maybe 5 years ago she had a rough operation for lung cancer which she got through ok. She was still able to do physical work around the house and yard. Then she fell and broke her arm, went through 2 separate sessions of proton therapy (similar to radiation), had an operation for a benign brain tumor, fell and broke her hip, and is currently taking chemo pills.

She told me one day that she was hoarding pain pills because she didn't want to go through that long, ugly process that many go through in their last years of life. When it gets to the point where she doesn't feel like going on she will just check out.

Well that applies equally to terrorism - it's not a problem you solve by throwing money at it. Nevertheless there is some, albeit limited, benefit to directing resources to these problems and we have to decide what is the best use of our money - addressing health problems or addressing terrorism? Guns or butter? It's one of the reasons we in the economics biz try to make introductory economics classes mandatory for every college student. We can't just ignore these choices, no matter how painful it is to think about it.

We also can't ignore that we are spending money we don't have, kicking the can down the road to let future generations deal with the mess.

So it makes sense to apply that logic to healthcare but not to military spending?

[tontoz]

That isn't exactly news since we all get health problems and die in the end.

A girl I knew in high school was on Pan Am flight 103. She was one of 270 killed before their time by Muslim terrorists. I don't think her family or the families of other victims would be that impressed with your post.

It's not about healthcare coverage versus fighting terrorism. We need to do both. But it is about priorities. And I'm much more interested in spending money on the health and well-being of American citizens than I am on fighting terrorism, especially since it's pretty obvious that more Americans will die from preventable health problems than from terrorism.

It's quite flippant (and silly) of you to simply say "we all get health problems and die in the end." Sounds like you're saying why have healthcare coverage at all. Are you willing to give up your healthcare coverage and stop seeing doctors since "we all get health problems and die?"

BTW, a woman I graduated from high school with died on 9-11 in one of the Twin Towers. She worked for the NY-NJ Port Authority. I'm close friends with her sister and her sister's husband, and I have dinner with them regularly when I'm in NYC. I know very well the pain of losing a friend and loved one to terrorism.

Speaking for myself I have a job with health coverage. I also work out regularly, have a sub 60 heart rate and very low blood pressure. I am not relying on the government for health care and I don't believe government owes it to me to provide health care if I quit my job.

Health care as we know it now is unsustainable. That is a fact that has to be faced. We also need to evaluate how big of a role government should have in health care. After watching how they have handled other issues, like housing and student loans, I am inclined to believe that their role should be more limited.

Personally I think health care should be separated from work status. If we could buy our own health care in the open market, the same way we buy a car, I believe that would increase competition and drive down costs.

[tontoz]

Well that applies equally to terrorism - it's not a problem you solve by throwing money at it. Nevertheless there is some, albeit limited, benefit to directing resources to these problems and we have to decide what is the best use of our money - addressing health problems or addressing terrorism? Guns or butter? It's one of the reasons we in the economics biz try to make introductory economics classes mandatory for every college student. We can't just ignore these choices, no matter how painful it is to think about it.

We also can't ignore that we are spending money we don't have, kicking the can down the road to let future generations deal with the mess.

So it makes sense to apply that logic to healthcare but not to military spending?

Military spending is ridiculous too. I don't think we should be the world's police.

But I work in health care so I am more familiar with it and I think the current course simply won't work. Sfam's "solving" comment seemed to be implying that our health care woes could be solved by funding. We are already overspending on health care.

[DCZards]

We also can't ignore that we are spending money we don't have, kicking the can down the road to let future generations deal with the mess.

So it makes sense to apply that logic to healthcare but not to military spending?

Military spending is ridiculous too. I don't think we should be the world's police.

But I work in health care so I am more familiar with it and I think the current course simply won't work. Sfam's "solving" comment seemed to be implying that our health care woes could be solved by funding. We are already overspending on health care.

The overspending on healthcare is primarily because of the inflated cost of healthcare...not because of the # of people we cover. It's the cost we should be addressing.

I happen to believe that healthcare coverage should be a right and not a privilege. And if someone doesn't have employer-provided healthcare like you do or can't afford to pay for coverage, then hell yes!...use my tax-dollars to have the government provide it for them.

[sfam]

We also can't ignore that we are spending money we don't have, kicking the can down the road to let future generations deal with the mess.

So it makes sense to apply that logic to healthcare but not to military spending?

Military spending is ridiculous too. I don't think we should be the world's police.

But I work in health care so I am more familiar with it and I think the current course simply won't work. Sfam's "solving" comment seemed to be implying that our health care woes could be solved by funding. We are already overspending on health care.

To be clear, I think our health care woes get solved the same way the rest of the developed world does it - removing insurance and drug companies as the primary driver of costs, and instead go to a single payer where basic health care is a right.

But if we're talking about taking away health care for poor folks in order to fund extraneous military expenditures that won't rteduce violent extremism, its an easy call.

EDIT: and yes, like most in the US, I actually trust our government over my health insurance company for covering my care. I have yet to meet anyone who likes health insurance companies, aside perhaps from Republicans in Congress. The goals of my health insurance company, whoever they are, have always been clear - make money. As an independent consultant for years prior to Obamacare, I can attest to the insane problems individuals have in the market. Costs rise crazy each year, but this in't the real proble. The real problem is because you're a single individual, they do everything possible to stop payment. Literally, I had the paperwork claim for basic care for my daughter get lost 3 TIMES!!! This wasn't an accident.

[tontoz]

So it makes sense to apply that logic to healthcare but not to military spending?

Military spending is ridiculous too. I don't think we should be the world's police.

But I work in health care so I am more familiar with it and I think the current course simply won't work. Sfam's "solving" comment seemed to be implying that our health care woes could be solved by funding. We are already overspending on health care.

To be clear, I think our health care woes get solved the same way the rest of the developed world does it - removing insurance and drug companies as the primary driver of costs, and instead go to a single payer where basic health care is a right.

But if we're talking about taking away health care for poor folks in order to fund extraneous military expenditures that won't rteduce violent extremism, its an easy call.

Single payer is not the answer. Canada has single payer and their medical services are terrible compared to ours. They don't even have access to a lot of the advanced treatments we have here and wait times are outrageous.

Less government and more competition is the better option. There is a reason why medical costs have been going up while the costs of Lasik and cosmetic procedures have been coming down.

[dckingsfan]

Well first, do we have a problem with entitlement spending and the debt load created?

[dckingsfan]

So, since there is no money for defense spending, funding the UN, the State Department, then why not just start defunding those now?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Military spending is ridiculous too. I don't think we should be the world's police.

But I work in health care so I am more familiar with it and I think the current course simply won't work. Sfam's "solving" comment seemed to be implying that our health care woes could be solved by funding. We are already overspending on health care.

To be clear, I think our health care woes get solved the same way the rest of the developed world does it - removing insurance and drug companies as the primary driver of costs, and instead go to a single payer where basic health care is a right.

But if we're talking about taking away health care for poor folks in order to fund extraneous military expenditures that won't rteduce violent extremism, its an easy call.

Single payer is not the answer. Canada has single payer and their medical services are terrible compared to ours. They don't even have access to a lot of the advanced treatments we have here and wait times are outrageous.

Less government are more competition is the better option. There is a reason why medical costs have been going up while the costs of Lasik and cosmetic procedures have been coming down.

Unfortunately there is nothing in your statement that fits with actual reality. There is no country you can point to across the world where this works as you say. Literally the rest of the developed world has gone to single payer and almost everyone in the developed world has better health care than the US for less cost. Health insurance should be for top-up care like Aflac, which would solve your advanced treatment problem.

Sign me up for Canada health care. Like Now. Or the UK's. Or Germany's. Or Sweden's. Or Japan's. Or Singapore's.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter