This is why I hate the whole "starve the beast" idea. Even Cato Institute (which I disagree with on so many issues) agrees that starve the beast was a resounding failure. If we want to cut federal spending, we need to cut federal spending. We can't cut income and hope that this cuts spending. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/po...
Of course, in reality, nobody is a real conservative. Everybody only wants to cut spending on things they disagree with but I doubt there's anyone who will advocate spending cuts across the board, even if they benefit from such spending (and therefore the spending cut would hurt them).
Sounds great - just make a list of what government spending is unnecessary, and compare with similar lists created by 10 random people from your city/state/nation.
Everyone has a different idea of which spending is unnecessary and what taxes are unneeded.
70% of the federal budget is mandatory spending on entitlement programs or interest costs. These programs are extremely efficient--over 99% of Social Security and 96% of Medicare dollars go to beneficiaries.
So what's "unneeded spending?" Voters have decided that our country should have a safety net. As long as that's true, even if you get rid of all other spending you'd save at most 30% of the tax bill. Still a huge need to think of better ways to raise the remaining 70%.
I'd argue we're not spending those Medicare dollars efficiently. Did you know you get a choice between expensive brand name drugs and generics, even if the generics have the same efficacy? Insanity. Cut the profit out of healthcare, and your Medicare health care dollars are going to go a lot futher.
I'd call that 96% figure generous, but it's not, it's wildly out of line.
Medicare might be somewhere between 33% and 50% efficient.
The amount of doctoring / healthcare consumed in the US is far beyond any other comparable first world system.
Far too expensive of procedures; too high of salaries for doctors and healthcare workers in general (eg the median radiologist salary in the US is $380k; in France it's ~$100k); drug prices that are drastically too high; and the over-consumption of all of it - the US Government's primary focus over the next 20 years should be to bring healthcare per capita costs in line with the rest of the first world.
Cutting the profit out of healthcare isn't going to make a difference unless you're willing to dramatically reduce: 1) the total consumption of healthcare services; 2) healthcare salaries; 3) drug costs.
Profit is a fraction of the problem. You might save 7%-10% by eliminating all profit from every company in the health sector, from hospitals to drug companies. Now how do you plan to deal with the other 30% to 40% of cost that needs to be eliminated?
Without knowing the exact figures, I would say you're (in part) missing the point. The parent was using "efficient" in the same way that a non-profit or other fund might say efficient (i.e. that money in is mostly money out, administration _by the program_ is not a significant source of cost). Whether the health system spend is efficient is strongly related, but a separate section of the pie.
> The parent was using "efficient" in the same way that a non-profit or other fund might say efficient (i.e. that money in is mostly money out, administration _by the program_ is not a significant source of cost).
Correct. Example: Watsi.org. They are amazingly efficient at delivering healthcare to people in the third world, and they run off donations. [+]
[+] Its true they are partially funded by YC now to run their ops, but I believe all of their healthcare provider spending is still entirely donation driven.
