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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by ocdtrekkie »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #609
insane_dreamer wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposed Senate budget includes $150 billion increase in the defense budget, which already was 50% of all discretionary spending (that means after SS and Medicare as that is covered by a separate tax). This is much more than any DOGE savings, and shows that this isn't about reducing the federal budget, but about cutting services in order to fund two things: military, and corporate tax cuts (which largely benefit…

DOGE isn't really cutting things to fund others. Many of their cuts are going to be net revenue negative. Many will cost taxpayers more of their money. It's about gutting the civil service and staffing them with loyalists that will do what Trump or Musk want, despite what the law says. It's consolidation of power and corruption. Musk is also crippling many of the agencies that enforce regulations on his businesses.

The most obvious case is the CFPB, which returns roughly twice its cost to taxpayers. I would argue that's honestly very inefficient, I'd like to see the CFPB returning a multiple of its cost to taxpayers... but nonetheless it is obvious shutting it down will cost taxpayers more.

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

#652

Post by gramie »

silvestrov wrote: post #314
firejake308 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know of at least one source arguing that in fact, population health (mainly obesity and gun violence) explain upwards of 70% of the difference in healthcare spending between the US and other developed nations.[1] To me, this seems like the most likely explanation because I believe we have pretty similar diagnostics and treatments to other developed countries, and I don't feel like a British doctor would give me any…

It is very expensive to run the insurance companies, plus all the time the hospitals need to spend to talk/plead with the insurance companies. When you have the state as a single payer then all those expenses just vanishes.

A doctor I know worked in the US and then returned to Canada. In his US clinic, each doctor had 2-3 employees devoted to billing (patient-paid and insurance). In his Canadian clinic, they had 1 employee doing the billing for 4 doctors.

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

#653

Post by unclebucknasty »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #615
unclebucknasty wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should it scale linearly with GDP? I can see an argument that it should scale linearly with population (maybe) That does seem more intuitive, but I think throwing GDP in the mix is intended to measure something different—kind of our theoretical ability to bear the cost. > but if GDP per capita increases, you could also expect better tech/productivity to allow gov spending per capita to decrease. To some degree,…

Medicare is very much not a direct transfer. It's highly dependent on the cost of providing healthcare, which, if reduced (e.g. through regulatory reform) would allow the same value in benefits to be provided at a lower cost. Social security is a direct transfer, but it's also... not a very well-targeted program. The nominal purpose is to prevent indigent retirees from being on the street, but then it not only makes…

Medicaire is not fully a direct transfer, but not for the reason you mention.

But, on the substance, you're correct that it was a horrible example, because the outlay is influenced by a highly inefficient system. Feel free to ignore.

My larger point to OP was that, the higher the proportion of our spending that is represented in transfers, the less likely it is that the same general technology and productivity gains that lifted per capita GDP would likewise decrease government spending per OP's assertion.

But, I missed the mark a second time in my comment by failing to mention that very little of those private sector productivity gains would flow to any government spending by osmosis. Beyond true direct transfers, other services would require regulatory change (to your point) or a review of specific government processes.

So, in any case, there's little reason to believe that per capita GDP increases would cause a corresponding reduction in government spending. They're coupled very loosely, if they are at all.

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

#654

Post by trustinmenowpls »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #632
IAmGraydon wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but while I disagree with Musks actions, more than half of the 14 items don’t fit what’s currently happening.

Only meets HALF of the fascism warning signs you say? Nevermind then. Nothing to see here.

The point I think is that at least half could apply to nearly an government or group, I don't know who this guy is or why his rules are important and merit any discussion, but generally generic rules written generically that can be interpreted any which way aren't super helpful in any discussion.

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

#655

Post by sxyuan »

Glyptodon wrote: post #646
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…

I don't think a reasonable discussion is possible. Congress is supposed to fund the government and say how money is spent. The executive "cutting" things to "save money" is basically the executive assuming the power of the legislative branch. That said, what we're witnessing doesn't actually seem to be about spending. It seems to be more about obtaining direct dominance over the whole branch so it can be run essentia…

I have the same concerns as you regarding the constitutionality of everything that's been going on. The thing is, the judicial branch interprets the constitution, and while the Supreme Court likes to maintain a pretense of cold impartiality, in practice they try not to run too far out of step with popular opinion.

Which is to say, the opinion of your old high school classmate matters, for better or for worse. And I'd like to believe that our conversations matter, in so far as we can talk civilly with each other, and perhaps, just perhaps, change each others' views over time. We need to reverse this trend of shouting at each other over the Internet and hating "the other side" that we've been on for the past 10, 20 years. Our democracy depends on it.

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

#656

Post by all2 »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #650
digitaltrees wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It scales linearly because the same ratio of services to people continues. There aren’t suddenly less kids to educate, less elderly that need health care or less cases in federal court as the population grows. —- As someone that has been in healthcare for 12 years it’s broken because of the corporate structure and administrative state of companies. The payors and providers share the same incentive to raise rates beca…

Don’t worry, RFK will be gone in 6mo once the pharma lobbyists get through to Congress members if he touches anything that affects their profits.

I do worry - in a sense. I have no doubt that a mugging gone wrong or a car crash because reasons could occur or is being considered actively.

Too often the enemies of the deep state wind up dead under suspicious circumstances. I see no reason why any of the new guard will be exempt from those methods.

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

#657

Post by maga_2020 »

I would like to have a substitative discussion of how to validate the claims that DOGE is not saving as much as they claim.

Should I trust the Intercept's article [1] that New York times is referring to?

I guess a larger point is that NY Times wants to their readers to focus on particular instances where Doge, they believe, they miscalculated their impact on waste.

But, in my mind, does not change the overall intend of Doge's remit, the short term and long term benefits of improving organization efficiencies, reducing corruption, and reducing federal budget.

50 years from now, the next generation will be looking at these times, and these efforts -- as a rare example of positive, transformational polices, a bloodless revolution of the common sense defeating the monster of corruption, selective persecutions, identity politics and senseless wars.

[1]https://archive.is/MCUX8

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

#658

Post by anon7000 »

cuuupid wrote: post #599
zamalek wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, beyond unobjectionable facts that the government wastes money, that money isn't completely wasted: some percentage eventually becomes salaries for Americans (the rest in some rich person's pockets). For example, all the USAID jobs that are now gone. There are now billions-USD-worth fewer jobs in the American economy.

There are now billions-USD-worth fewer dollars being taken from struggling American workers. Administrative spending is also not that high, the majority of savings are in contracts. This is related to jobs because every employee you lay off, is one less person who can spend millions of dollars. So in practice, there are now billions-USD-worth fewer dollars being taken from struggling American workers and being sent a…

This is not true, unless a tax cut is actually passed which lowers taxes for the poor. (And the poorest already aren’t paying that much in tax. And FICA wouldn’t get cut, since that money doesn’t fund what doge covers.)

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

#659

Post by terribleperson »

brightball wrote: post #536
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…

The way to attack the problem economically would have involved giving everyone in the USA an HSA that was funded to allow them to directly consume healthcare services with price exposure. It would naturally force competition on price. The ACA that we got instead cemented the separation of people from the price of their service and costs have ballooned even more than that were previously. The economic approach is the…

This wouldn't work when you can't get an accurate, up-front price for anything, and all unexpected costs fall on the patient with no real recourse.

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

#660

Post by digitaltrees »

cwalv wrote: post #502
digitaltrees wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It scales linearly because the same ratio of services to people continues. There aren’t suddenly less kids to educate, less elderly that need health care or less cases in federal court as the population grows. —- As someone that has been in healthcare for 12 years it’s broken because of the corporate structure and administrative state of companies. The payors and providers share the same incentive to raise rates beca…

> It scales linearly because the same ratio of services to people continues That would be scaling with population, not GDP. > The payors and providers share the same incentive to raise rates because they each collect a percentage of premiums This must be an oversimplification. Why would insurers ever reject a claim, or spend time negotiating lower rates, if they're only incentivized to see health costs increase?

Claims approval has nothing to do with rate setting. Insurance companies can deny individual claims and still use the total payments in the aggregate to argue for premium increases with their regulators. Remember they are entitled to a statutory administrative costs fee. That’s how they really make money. 10% of a $2B is more than 10% of 1B so they want spending to go up.
Post reply on HN