What could POTUS do to make the economy more efficient? Reduce the size of government? Utilize the private sector?

[Elmer]

On 3/9/2016 at 6:48 PM, SavvySwede said:

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)
2. Quit subsidizing already profitable businesses (oil, etc)
3. Reduce subsidies for commercial farms (they're supposed to be there for the little guy)
4. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

Is any of this within the president's power? Well, not really. With a useless congress don't expect anything to happen. I am optimistic more incumbent's will be cleared out this season than usual.

Our military is the best in the universe, (just dont let our alien overlords know I said that!).
We could annihilate anything from anywhere.
Unfortunately we are now fighting against guerrilla warfare with advanced technology. 
But the point I wanted to make is that the military budget has been unquestioned for far too long.
We are paying millions and billions for continued development of advanced weapons and manufacturing of weapons.
Yet we pay a PFC approx $19,000 a year.
We spend 500 Billion a year on the military. I am sure we can find a few billions cuts someplace,

[Lihu]

37 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Our military is the best in the universe, (just dont let our alien overlords know I said that!).
We could annihilate anything from anywhere.
Unfortunately we are now fighting against guerrilla warfare terrorists with advanced technology. 
But the point I wanted to make is that the military budget has been unquestioned for far too long.
We are paying millions and billions for continued development of advanced weapons and manufacturing of weapons.
Yet we pay a PFC approx $19,000 a year.
We spend 500 Billion a year on the military. I am sure we can find a few billions cuts someplace,

Fixed that for you.

[Elmer]

19 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Fixed that for you.

Thanks for pretending to be a know it all!
Guerrilla warfare is the tactic
Terrorist is the person/combatant using that method.

Even the Continental Army engaged in Guerrilla Warfare!

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

[k-troop]

On 3/9/2016 at 6:48 PM, SavvySwede said:

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)
2. Quit subsidizing already profitable businesses (oil, etc)
3. Reduce subsidies for commercial farms (they're supposed to be there for the little guy)
4. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

Is any of this within the president's power? Well, not really. With a useless congress don't expect anything to happen. I am optimistic more incumbent's will be cleared out this season than usual.

I agree with this list, pretty much entirely. 

On 3/10/2016 at 7:22 PM, saevel25 said:

I am still skeptical for this. Just the stories of other countries that have long wait times because the government just doesn't pay well to the doctors. With this country's shrinking doctor workforce and the piles of college debt they have. Throw in a system where the government shafts them by undercutting their costs will just further drive people out of the medical field. 

I rather see things like tort reform against stupid malpractice suits. Also, figure out a way to start getting this country into better shape and out from under the pharmaceuticals. 

If I was to support a universal healthcare it would be catastrophic care. Stuff like, you accidentally get shot. You end up in a car crash. You end up getting cancer. Things that can just devastate a whole family with debt. Things like routine check ups. If you negotiate with a doctor they are pretty good about working out a compromise on costs.

I think most people who get into the medical field want to help people.  But that's still not to say doctors have to be paid less.  You could create significant savings simply by eliminating the layer of bureaucracy inherent in the insurance system. 

I agree that a central (or single payer) system should be menu care, but I come out on the other side of catastrophic care.  Basic health care such as immunizations, prenatal, child health care, infectious disease, broken bones, etc. should be available to everyone.  Specialized (and highly expensive) intensive care for low-density diseases (I'm thinking dialysis, organ transplant, certain cancers, etc.) probably shouldn't be covered (unless by reforming the system you can make it cheaper--see HIV drugs).  The R's effectively killed the discussion with the term "death panel", but I don't see anything wrong with the Gov't saying "We're going to provide a basic level of care that will cover most people for most problems, but we have to draw the line somewhere."

Drug companies are a problem.  I've always felt there was something inherently wrong with an ad for a pill.  If I'm sick, I see a doctor.  If it's medically advisable, the doctor will give me a pill.  I shouldn't be watching a commercial on TV and then go ask the doctor for a pill.  To me, this defines the core problem:  consumerized care that's paid for by a third party splits the economic incentives in unnatural ways. 

Will we have adequate drug research, development, and innovation without drug companies as they're currently organized?  I don't really know the answer to that.  I think we need a true assessment of what real medical innovation is being made by drug companies (not just another boner pill or antidepressant).  Then we can weigh the value of that innovation against the cost of HIV drugs (for example) at $2k per pill.  Universities funded by grants are excellent centers for research in many fields.  Academics driven by the quest for knowledge and innovation (and fueled by a steady stream of graduate students) can be pretty powerful with adequate funding.

The med malpractice tort reform argument is bogus. 

Quote

Tort reformers blame the prospect of malpractice suits for the proliferation of “defensive medicine” and thus higher health-care costs in general. Doctors, they argue, prescribe costly tests that patients don’t need in order to protect themselves against suits. However, extensive research — including some done by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office — has shown that tort reform has had no influence on health-care costs. Doctors practice defensive medicine simply because it generates extra income.

The effect that lawsuits have had on doctors’ malpractice insurance rates has also been negligible. Insurance premiums have still increased in states with extensive tort-reform measures, researchers at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concluded after reviewing 11 major studies. Rates in those states rates have gone up 6 percent — compared with 13 percent in non-tort-reform states.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/08/25/302803.htm

(First one that came up in a google search, but I was first introduced to the trove of similar studies like this when I took an insurance law class in law school a dozen years ago.)

On 3/10/2016 at 7:59 PM, SavvySwede said:

Do we even really need to do more though? We already have 6 military bases in the UK. Do they really need our help?

The military issue is tricky.  Yes, we need the military capability.  Yes, we need strategic presence.  We don't have six bases in UK because they need our "help."  We have forward bases for strategic presence and to honor our NATO obligations (and essentially for the prevention of WWIII).  We don't put everything on one base because, well, that would be stupid (from a strategic force protection/security perspective).

Look at history.  Throughout history there is a direct correlation between military strength and a country's wealth, power, and influence.  To think the world is any different now because of the McDonald's theory or whatever IR thesis du jour you're reading is drivel.  Persia, Athens, Rome, Ottoman, Austrian, French, British, etc., from the third millenium B.C. to Sykes-Picot, military strength matters.

How much of our military expenditure is directly increasing capability, and what is the marginal cost?  Many of our major combat systems are getting old.  End strength cuts are impacting Army brigades, and that's a problem.  However, we have a ton of "military" that may not be directly contributing to capability in a financially acceptable way.  Military organizations (much like any government organization, from a local Parks Department all the way to the Dep't of the Interior) are intensely defensive of their structure.  Once you've got that fifth plans team, or government purchase card NCO, or DTS administrator, you wonder how you ever got along without them! 

Reality is that we could probably cut a ton of positions (like drastically) in HQs and non-deployable institutional organizations without losing capability (or only marginally decreasing).  We could probably increase military capability while decreasing cost by doing some of the following-

1. Reduce the overall size of the active force (mostly by trimming HQs and non-deployable institutional positions), but provide them with better equipment and training.

2.  Transition more capability to the reserves, but also increase their training and readiness.

3.  Reform the budget process so it's tied more directly to increases in readiness or capability.  Too much incentive within units and organizations to spend just for spending's sake.

4. Acquisition process is totally broken.  The FAR is too restrictive, has too much due process, too many earmarks for preferenced groups, etc.  20-year lead time for major combat systems ensures every project comes in at double the budget and is obsolete at delivery.  But that's not even the real problem.  The Army's current operating concept and the "operational environment" the military plans (and procures) against contains a central, fundamental premise that makes acquisition of equipment nearly impossible.  We don't know who we're going to fight or what capability we will need, so any attempt to organize, equip, and train for a specific set of capabilities is barely better than a wild ass guess.  It's almost as bad as you are buying car insurance, and they're offering fire, theft, flood, and collision protection.  You can only buy two.  Which two do you pick?  Aren't you going to feel like a dumbass if you shell out a few thousand bucks for theft protection and a tree falls on it?

Bottom line:  the acquisition process is one of the biggest obstacles to aligning dollars with capability that is useful at the time the combatant commander needs it.  It needs to change drastically to become more adaptive.

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Thanks for pretending to be a know it all!
Guerrilla warfare is the tactic
Terrorist is the person/combatant using that method.

Even the Continental Army engaged in Guerrilla Warfare!

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

The difference is that a terrorist commits acts against soft targets, while most Guerilla tactics are used against military targets by lesser armed military forces.

Something like the recent San Bernardino attack is a terrorist act or in other words a criminal act against unarmed civilians. The war on terror is really a war on organized criminals. They are not using Guerilla tactics. They justify their violence against innocent civilians with a "cause".

[k-troop]

9 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The difference is that a terrorist commits acts against soft targets, while most Guerilla tactics are used against military targets by lesser armed military forces.

Something like the recent San Bernardino attack is a terrorist act or in other words a criminal act against unarmed civilians. The war on terror is really a war on organized criminals. They are not using Guerilla tactics. They justify their violence against innocent civilians with a "cause".

The terms guerrilla and insurgent are essentially interchangeable in discussions of modern warfare.  The term guerrilla originated in Spain, probably as a way to describe popular resistance to Napoleon's push into the Iberian peninsula.  It has, however, been used retroactively back to 500 BC (see Sun Tzu) to describe any irregular armed response to a state authority.

The essence of guerrilla/insurgent/irregular warfare is that the strategic objective for the counter-guerrilla/insurgent is not the insurgent force itself, but the drivers of the force (recruiting, money, political instability, ideology, etc.)  In that sense, it's a perfect description for today's conflict.  See Army Counterinsurgency Manual (FM 3-24), as well as TE Lawrence (Seven Pillars), David Kilkullen (Accidental Guerrilla), Max Boot (Invisible Armies), TX Hammes (Sling & Stone), John Nagl, David Galula, Roger Trinquier, etc., etc.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, k-troop said:

The terms guerrilla and insurgent are essentially interchangeable in discussions of modern warfare.  The term guerrilla originated in Spain, probably as a way to describe popular resistance to Napoleon's push into the Iberian peninsula.  It has, however, been used retroactively back to 500 BC (see Sun Tzu) to describe any irregular armed response to a state authority.

The essence of guerrilla/insurgent/irregular warfare is that the strategic objective for the counter-guerrilla/insurgent is not the insurgent force itself, but the drivers of the force (recruiting, money, political instability, ideology, etc.)  In that sense, it's a perfect description for today's conflict.  See Army Counterinsurgency Manual (FM 3-24), as well as TE Lawrence (Seven Pillars), David Kilkullen (Accidental Guerrilla), Max Boot (Invisible Armies), TX Hammes (Sling & Stone), John Nagl, David Galula, Roger Trinquier, etc., etc.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll read the references you described.