Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#391

Post by thrance »

ruraljuror wrote: post #210

Keeping Musk’s interests in mind helps clarify what’s going on. Scorching earth and constantly lying is the playbook for dismantling agencies with oversight into the companies he runs and agencies that promote potential growth of competitors (e.g. pulling the ladder up behind him after the DoE’s Tesla loan). The Canada/China tariffs will cripple other automakers who depend on trade while Tesla’s integrated manufactur…

Yup, that's basic class consciousness on Musk's part. The American people simply forgot that billionaires' interests are diametrically opposed to theirs, a fact they knew well in FDR's time. Hopefully this situation will act as a booster shot, and not slip into full-blow oligarchy.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#392

Post by ijustlovemath »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #350
secos wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or raise taxes.

They are raising taxes. Income tax on everyone earning g less than 360K is going up, plus tariffs which are regressive. They're also cutting taxes for those earning more than that, the top 5% https://itep.org/a-distributional-analysis-of-donald-trumps-...

Which would probably raise less than a modest wealth tax on billionaires, but we know that will never get traction (even though its an extremely popular policy)

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#393

Post by unclebucknasty »

jimmar wrote: post #326
sxyuan wrote: post #248

For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…

1. US GDP estimated GDP in 2024 is $29 trillion. According to your first source, U.S. Federal Spending was 23% of GDP. If that were reduced to the 2014-2019 average of 20%, that would trim $870 billion from federal spending. That seems like good progress toward avoiding a potential debt crisis. 2. Reduce defense overall and make the process of getting money to the needy more efficient. 3. No comment. Healthcare is me…

>Taxes on corporations, like tariffs, are just passed onto consumers

The manner by which tariffs and taxes effect the price consumers pay are not at all the same. Tariffs have a far more direct (and immediate) impact.

And, in the case of taxes, these are not "just passed onto consumers" in healthy markets with good competition. But, I agree that this does not describe our current market, which I'm all in favor of fixing.

As it is these oligopolies and monopolies are double dipping. They get us on price and selection to their own gain, then threaten to get us even more if we ask them to pay more taxes on those gains.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#394

Post by etchalon »

harry8 wrote: post #366
qgin wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 3 can’t be overstated. Healthcare costs for the exact same care are 2x-3x what they are in Europe. Global health insurance plans usually come in two flavors: 1. Global coverage 2. Global coverage excluding United States (for half the monthly premium of the first plan) The United States in an extreme outlier in terms of cost. This is separate from rationing care. This is separate from even population health (ex…

20 years ago I read a story about an obstetrician in the USA. His premiums at that time for professional negligence were $1m per year. He would have to keep paying those premiums for 18 years after his retirement. Same for every obstetrician. Professional fees then must be set to cover those insurance premiums. Has that changed for the better in the USA? Seems very unlikely to be the same in Europe. Obstetrics is obv…

This was an argument in the 90s/early 20s. TX, where I live, implemented tort reform in 2003 to limit doctor's exposure, and decrease insurance costs.

It hasn't had much impact on costs:

https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#395

Post by ipython »

harry8 wrote: post #366
qgin wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 3 can’t be overstated. Healthcare costs for the exact same care are 2x-3x what they are in Europe. Global health insurance plans usually come in two flavors: 1. Global coverage 2. Global coverage excluding United States (for half the monthly premium of the first plan) The United States in an extreme outlier in terms of cost. This is separate from rationing care. This is separate from even population health (ex…

20 years ago I read a story about an obstetrician in the USA. His premiums at that time for professional negligence were $1m per year. He would have to keep paying those premiums for 18 years after his retirement. Same for every obstetrician. Professional fees then must be set to cover those insurance premiums. Has that changed for the better in the USA? Seems very unlikely to be the same in Europe. Obstetrics is obv…

I would need to see a citation for this story. Medical malpractice/negligence premiums are very high - OBGYNs pay some of the highest rates. Just a few google searches shows that rates can exceed $200k (annually) in some locales in 2024.

So to claim in 2004 that there are doctors paying > $1m/year in malpractice insurance is at least an order of magnitude away from what casual googling discloses.

I agree that the whole system is fucked, but I would like to make sure we are working on a solid set of base facts.

I found this article [0] from the NYTimes in 2005 that highlighted a neurosurgeon who was paying >$200k/year in malpractice premiums around that time

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/business/behind-those-med...

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#396

Post by ctrlp »

thrance wrote: post #367
JackYoustra wrote: post #299

Rule of law is what allows us to grow. Acemoglu won a nobel prize showing that institutions cause growth. Destroy institutions and you'll undershoot potential.

Pet peeve: there is no Nobel prize of economics, Alfred Nobel didn't include "economy" in his will. Instead there is a "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" whose purpose is to give credibility to the unscientific field of economics. The prize itself is mostly awarded to neoliberalists economists and does not often represent the majority views in the field.

YATP: Yet Another Tool of Patronage.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#397

Post by forrestthewoods »

sxyuan wrote: post #388
forrestthewoods wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. But debt as percent of GDP has been growing. Can't do that forever. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S 2/3. If the US pays more for health care and gets worse results why should we give them more money? I don't think health insurance companies should be abolished by royal decree. I think the government should offer an alternative and when that alternative is 4x as dollar efficient the health insurance…

1. Agreed. 2/3. Then perhaps the US should elect representatives who will expand Medicare to more people. (Or go back in time and get the public option added back to Obamacare.) Unfortunately, instead we have an increasing number of people using Medicare Advantage, essentially a private wrapper around a public insurance plan, which costs taxpayers 22% more per participant. 4. Are we looking at the same graph? The rat…

4. Sorry, been flat for 40 years not 50 years.

> The economy has grown substantially; corporate tax contributions, not so much.

Hey wait a second. Why should the PERCENT of corporate tax contributions increase as the economy grows? That doesn't make any sense. Corporate tax percent has been basically flat for 40 years.

The absolute value of corporate contribution has, of course, increase substantially alongside GDP. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX

Personally I find the whole "tax the rich / tax the corpos" philosophy to be misguided. That's not how countries like Sweden and France pay for robust social services! They do so with extremely regressive taxes (20% or 25% VAT) and very high tax rates (40%+) at relatively low income rates (50k to 80k depending on country).

If we want to decrease inequality and increase social services then the average blue collar worker is going to have to pay for it. Taxing the rich is populism that cares more about being punitive than useful. But I digress.

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#399

Post by dmoy »

hnmullany wrote: post #364
heartbreak wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You linked to a blog post about Medicare fraud, not Social Security fraud.

That's because the original responder's data was about medicare fraud although the estimate was provided by the Social Security Administration

But they explicitly said $400B which is not medicare's budget, but rather social security's budget

Re: DOGE's only public ledger is riddled with mistakes

#400

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sxyuan wrote: post #248

For those who want to have a substantive discussion on the federal budget and believe these cuts are justified, I have a few questions (putting aside questions of constitutionality for this thread): 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least th…

> The US population is aging, which means that 36% slice is going to naturally grow. What do you think should be cut, and how?

Old people [1], veterans [2], high earners and homeowners [3] turn out to vote. The only demographic we can cut benefits to are the poor. That's what's happening. (Given partisan polarisation, my guess is Democrats will take an axe to veteran benefits next cycle.)

> Why shouldn't the health insurance industry be the first item on the chopping block?

Health insurance is orthogonal to federal spending. The correct question is why Medicare shouldn't be allowed to directly negotiate pricing with providers on more items.

> Why shouldn't corporations (that benefit from a healthy and educated workforce, a safe and secure environment, a working transportation system, etc.) be paying their fair share to keep the national debt in check?

The term "fair share" is always loaded in tax discussions. Be honest and say why shouldn't corporations pay more. The answer to that is it's an inefficient way of taxing the wealthy since absent a progressive corporate tax structure, which nobody seems to be proposing, you wind up taxing a lot of small and medium-sized businesses.

Better: add tax brackets at the $1mm, $10mm and $100mm thresholds.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnou...

[2] https://ivmf.syracuse.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_Re...

[3] https://nlihc.org/resource/new-census-data-reveal-voter-turn...

Post reply on HN