OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[cabiness42]

If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

 

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/d...ent-since-1962/

 

Lowest number of civilian employees since 1962 was 2.501 million in 1964. Current level is 2.820 million, which is 12.8% higher than in 1962. Lowest level during Reagan's presidency was 2.825 million in 1982, so we are still a touch below the biggest year under Reagan.

 

Now, I can certainly tell you from personal experience that my agency could shed 5% of its staff without any noticeable loss in performance, and I'm guessing just about every agency, save maybe a few health, security, and defense related agencies, could do the same. You could also reclassify a lot of positions to lower grade levels and save another 5%. I don't buy the argument that government can't be leaner, but neither party is interested in doing it the right way.

 

I can also tell you from personal experience that a family of four with a gross income in the $75-100K range pays between 5-6% of gross income in Federal income tax, so I don't buy the argument that taxes on the middle class are too high.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/d...ent-since-1962/

 

Lowest number of civilian employees since 1962 was 2.501 million in 1964. Current level is 2.820 million, which is 12.8% higher than in 1962. Lowest level during Reagan's presidency was 2.825 million in 1982, so we are still a touch below the biggest year under Reagan.

 

But what is it as a percentage of the total workforce or population?

[EvilMonkey]

Most people aren't supportive of a minimalist libertarian-style government or a government that is so small that it has a negligible impact on the national economy. You can look to numerous polls on the support for various large-scale government programs (medicare/medicaid, social security, military). I could point you to the NSF's summary of public opinion on science funding, but, shutdown.

 

You can also just look at the political platforms people run on and are elected for. While plenty of conservatives run on a platform of "smaller government," few run on a platform of "virtually no government" and even less (if any) win. Also, many people respond generically in favor of "smaller government," but are much less likely to agree on cutting a specific program. Part of that may be from not knowing or understanding what government actually spends on what, e.g. huge public overestimation of how much we spend on foreign aid.

 

I'm not saying an overwhelming majority of people support the policies I believe in or want a government that's even as big as it currently is, just that few want a government as small as ss2k5 is arguing for.

Nobody ever said virtually no government, so nice way to try and change the topic. You said an 'overwhelming' majority of people favored a big government and offered no proof other than your opinion. Still haven't offered any proof to back up your claim. Now you claim you didn't say that? make up your mind.

[StrangeSox]

Nobody ever said virtually no government, so nice way to try and change the topic. You said an 'overwhelming' majority of people favored a big government and offered no proof other than your opinion. Still haven't offered any proof to back up your claim. Now you claim you didn't say that? make up your mind.

 

No, I did not say that an overwhelming majority of people favored a big government. I said an overwhelming majority of people do not favor ss2k5's level of government. ss2k5 has made arguments in the past and is arguing in this thread that a federal government that represents about 20% of GDP is far to large, that if the federal government is big enough that cutting it hurts the overall economy it is too large, and that if we need to rely on anti-cyclical government spending to get out of a major recession, it is too large. That necessarily implies a government that is so small that cutting it doesn't hurt the overall economy, which would be a drastically smaller government.

[pettie4sox]

A lot is being said but I just want to throw out a situation for you guys. I'm a research pharmaceutical chemist and the company gets funding from various sources (foreign, domestic, private, and public). Let's say there is a dual funding project (foreign and government) and the government stops paying up, that could be bad for a variety of reasons. The foreign sponsor could just take over the governments spot with funding. Say we get a breakthrough and the drug becomes live while the government effectively dropped out. This foreign sponsors own the right to the drug because the government dropped out. They can mass produce and ship the drug all across the world and bolster their economy. The US would be left twiddling their thumbs because of a missed opportunity.

 

This is purely hypothetical but this is could be a very realistic situation. Research is important and unless it's consistently funded, opportunities could be missed that could help in a variety of ways. I am personally appalled how the US claims to be the best but doesn't have a solid scientific foundation. Unless it's on how to build more efficient killing machines. Those killing machine will be worthless if we lose a brilliant scientist to some other country and they can easily disable them with a program.

Edited October 14, 2013 by pettie4sox

[cabiness42]

But what is it as a percentage of the total workforce or population?

 

That table didn't mention that. I know the US population increased about 72% from 1960-2010, but I don't think that necessarily justifies a 72% increase in government employment.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/d...ent-since-1962/

 

Lowest number of civilian employees since 1962 was 2.501 million in 1964. Current level is 2.820 million, which is 12.8% higher than in 1962. Lowest level during Reagan's presidency was 2.825 million in 1982, so we are still a touch below the biggest year under Reagan.

 

 

That table didn't mention that. I know the US population increased about 72% from 1960-2010, but I don't think that necessarily justifies a 72% increase in government employment.

 

US population in 1962 was 186.54M and is 314.69M in 2012, or roughly a 68% increase. We've had 13% growth in federal employment for a 68% increase in population. There doesn't necessarily need to be a 1:1 increase, but it's important to keep that in mind when comparing employment levels decades apart.

[southsider2k5]

The government is beholden to the people. More than can, I think we must have a robust federal government that provides many services to many people and which would be economically harmful if it were dismantled if we are to be a modern democratic state with a powerful economy. I see nothing bothersome about having a significantly large government such that substantial cuts to that government would cause real harm.

 

Can you lay out a basic framework for the type of government you envision such that it's expenditures are insignificant to the economy as a whole?

 

Except it isn't, and you can plainly see that by this demonstration of government power and control. The government is literally showing off its depth and breadth by punishing the people for not getting funding for a mere 15% of the government. The government shouldn't have the ability punish its own people in such a way, even in a theorhetical ideal, let alone reality.

[Jake]

My dad made a good point about this -- he says he knew the GOP was full of s*** when they decided to pay the back pay owed to the federal workers during the shutdown. If they wanted to shut down the government as a means of fiscal belt-tightening like they claim to be doing, why promise all those workers their pay? They like to treat the federal budget like a house budget, so why don't they put their money where their mouth is? If you "shut down" your home budget to the essential services to save money, you don't go spend the saved money once it is all over.

 

Also, the money used on research in the federal budget is practically inconsequential (to the budget). We're talking about 2% of the budget. No reason to hammer this part of the budget.

[StrangeSox]

Except it isn't, and you can plainly see that by this demonstration of government power and control. The government is literally showing off its depth and breadth by punishing the people for not getting funding for a mere 15% of the government. The government shouldn't have the ability punish its own people in such a way, even in a theorhetical ideal, let alone reality.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[southsider2k5]

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

I know you don't. That is kind of the point.

[StrangeSox]

I know you don't. That is kind of the point.

Can you explain how 'the government' is 'punishing' people here? Are 'they' 'punishing' people by closing services and stopping funding for the 15% of government that is deemed non-essential and is not currently funded?

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Can you explain how 'the government' is 'punishing' people here?

 

Wait, what? You can't be serious.

[StrangeSox]

Wait, what? You can't be serious.

 

No, I am serious. You are claiming 'the government' is 'punishing' people here because 'they' aren't getting 15% of funding. Who is doing the 'punishing' and how?

[southsider2k5]

No, I am serious. You are claiming 'the government' is 'punishing' people here because 'they' aren't getting 15% of funding. Who is doing the 'punishing' and how?

 

Now you are just being obtuse on purpose.

[StrangeSox]

No, I'm really not. I don't know what you're perceiving as 'punishment' because you haven't actually said much in that regard. Who is being punished and how?

 

edit: I jumped to an initial conclusion about what you were talking about, but I wanted to know what you actually meant instead of going with that because I've certainly been wrong about what you're saying in the past.

 

edit2: it also seems odd that you're trying to minimalize the impact of the shutdown ("a mere 15%"), argue against the importance of the federal role in scientific research among other things, and then also arguing that the federal government is "punishing the people." Yes, there's some very real harm caused by this "mere 15%" shutdown, some of it being discussed in this thread. But your wording implies that this harm is being purposely inflicted by 'the government' (and really, it seems as if you're blaming a particular group) because they aren't getting their "mere 15%," which completely misses that the harm comes directly from not getting the 15%. Parks are closed and research is going unfunded because, well, there aren't funds. You've got the causation here all mixed up.

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Except it isn't, and you can plainly see that by this demonstration of government power and control. The government is literally showing off its depth and breadth by punishing the people for not getting funding for a mere 15% of the government. The government shouldn't have the ability punish its own people in such a way, even in a theorhetical ideal, let alone reality.

 

The govt only has that ability because people wont hold them accountable for their actions.

 

The fundamental problem with the govt is WE, THE PEOPLE.

 

No amount of more or less govt is going to fix the problem. Either way the same people are going to rig the game. Im likely more anti-govt than you are, but I recognize that given no-govt or a lot of govt, its likely that most people would be more protected, better off, with more govt.

 

Ideally we would need no govt and people could self govern. But a good amount of time/effort/words have been spent on why no govt results in Leviathan like societal conditions.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[cabiness42]

US population in 1962 was 186.54M and is 314.69M in 2012, or roughly a 68% increase. We've had 13% growth in federal employment for a 68% increase in population. There doesn't necessarily need to be a 1:1 increase, but it's important to keep that in mind when comparing employment levels decades apart.

 

No I don't think a 13% growth in employment for a 68% increase in population is unreasonable. That said, regardless of what level you think is reasonable, I'm telling you that we could easily trim 5% off the rolls without any loss of service. Or, if you prefer, we could reallocate those 5% to improve the level of service.

[Soxbadger]

No I don't think a 13% growth in employment for a 68% increase in population is unreasonable. That said, regardless of what level you think is reasonable, I'm telling you that we could easily trim 5% off the rolls without any loss of service. Or, if you prefer, we could reallocate those 5% to improve the level of service.

 

The problem is that there are sacred cows that no one is willing to cut. And of course the non-sacred cow of having to give your friends contracts so that they keep voting for you.

 

But this is just business as usual.

 

What isnt business as usual is when you stop working over a temper tantrum and your boss (the people) doesnt seem to care.

 

IE

 

We had a vote, pizza party won, and 40% of the workers refuse to work until we change it to taco party.

 

This is what we have become. We are jokes.

[Soxfest]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10...health-coverage

 

 

Prices in Illinois not good.

[StrangeSox]

That article provides a good argument for why we should have just gone with single payer.

[Balta1701]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10...health-coverage

 

 

Prices in Illinois not good.

Read the fine print, they're specifically looking at the "lowest priced plans" when they tally up the deductible and then they quote the price of the premium plan as what he needs to "keep the doctors and network he has now". That's the classic cross up ploy. In reality he'd be getting significantly better coverage under that premium plan, but because the plans are changing that's the only plan that keeps access to every doctor.

 

In reality he will get one of the silver plans and probably find it slightly more expensive than what he was paying but will also have slightly better coverage.

 

The problems with the internet website are legitimate problems. This is standard opposition research. This is the stuff I was expecting, not "its two weeks in and the website doesn't work". That should not be happening at this point.

[NorthSideSox72]

If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

Valid question, sorry I didn't provide them earlier. I still have some up here...

 

For total federal employment, I used this. I felt Total Federal Employment was more accurate than direct federal employees, because the measure I chose was more all-encompassing for total effect.

 

Here is the spending graph, from the source indicated earlier.

 

Now I can't find the total revenue link, I'll have to re-search for it and get back to you, sorry. But I am sure you could find it if you wanted to look, these are public numbers.

[StrangeSox]

Read the fine print, they're specifically looking at the "lowest priced plans" when they tally up the deductible and then they quote the price of the premium plan as what he needs to "keep the doctors and network he has now". That's the classic cross up ploy. In reality he'd be getting significantly better coverage under that premium plan, but because the plans are changing that's the only plan that keeps access to every doctor.

 

In reality he will get one of the silver plans and probably find it slightly more expensive than what he was paying but will also have slightly better coverage.

 

The problems with the internet website are legitimate problems. This is standard opposition research. This is the stuff I was expecting, not "its two weeks in and the website doesn't work". That should not be happening at this point.

Oh, should have read closer. That's at least the third version of this ploy I've read.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

More at link

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...ans-true-costs/

 

A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

 

HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs

 

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)