Kamala's Campaign Launch Draws 20,000
- Thread starter iuwclurker
- Start date
LIke everything else, management skills are important. IRCC, the I69 fiasco was mostly result of a faulty design-build concept and inexperienced people. Is that correct? Design Build projects work well in my experience, but so much depends on well-drated documents and experienced and competent people representing the owner and the contractors.
Edit: Still the project was completed with private contractors no?
I’m absolutely taking a very thin reed and turning it into something much larger without any meaningful basis, but ...
Over the past couple weeks, I’ve heard a couple different reasonable conservatives speaking up for the viability of improvements to ACA. (I honestly don’t remember any meaningful conversation along those lines among any conservatives over the past ten years or so). Curiously, over the past month or so, there’s been an increased amount of dialogue among liberals about Medicare for All. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think folks loudly anchoring their side of the debate farther to the left (on points that publicly have some appeal) actively changed the scope of what can be accomplished “in the middle”.
If there were anything to that, I think there’d be lessons to be learned for both Democrats (who tend to prefer watered-down triangulation) and for Republicans (who believe the “extremists” if elected will necessarily accomplish exactly what they want with no legislative compromise).
I'm sure it was the government's fault.
If we don't like the highway system as an example, there's TVA. It worked great bringing power to areas that completely lacked it. The Panama Canal. Apollo. The Manhattan Project. Government laid all the original transatlantic cable. The Pony Express worked incredibly well. Communications satellites were all originally governmental. Mars Rovers. Voyagers are still sending back data LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG after life expectancy.
Almost all of those things were built by private contractors mostly with private management. I know the Manhattan Project was managed by scientists and others more or less drafted into service. The Denver VA construction was managed by the VA No accountability is usually a feature of government managers and that lack of accountability cost us more than $1b.
So again, if Europe is spending less than us, and that seems certain, how do we instill their accountability?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don't know, I know your thoughts on this sort of issue and thought I would ask CO what his are. People can make appointments faster in Europe (in that Kaiser link way back) and see their doctor cheaper. And the answer can't be we overuse medical resources, Europe and Japan see their doctors MORE often. The average Japanese visits their doctor 13 times a year, the average American 4.1. And those 13 visits are cheaper to the country than our 4.1.
If it isn't accountability, it isn't that we overuse doctors, I'm struggling to see the difference.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Is it an obvious answer that there are more doctors?
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
That is a whole new problem, goes to my issue on STEM. I've known a few local kids who were real stars on science olympiad and what not. Had great prospects in STEM. All chose the MBA route because of money. Our warped prioroties are pushing our best talent into a totally useless field (just kidding since I am fairly sure you are in that totally useless field
) But it is true that we are turning out MBAs far faster than doctors or engineers or scientists. MBA is the number one graduate degree now, it wasn't 30 years ago. Those people had to come from some other potential field.We need doctors, scientists, engineers. I don't know how to attract people into those fields. But look at medicine, in central Indiana someone comes out of med school and quite probably would go to IU Health where more than half the leadership and board have non-medical degrees. How often does an engineer become CEO of a car company in America? What's the last corporation to move a scientist into a CEO role? Maybe we need people who know the product trying to sell it more than people who know how to sell trying to learn the product?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
We’re getting down quite the rabbit hole now aren’t we? Scientists are usually not equipped to run publically traded companies. They’d do better with non-profits and universities.That is a whole new problem, goes to my issue on STEM. I've known a few local kids who were real stars on science olympiad and what not. Had great prospects in STEM. All chose the MBA route because of money. Our warped prioroties are pushing our best talent into a totally useless field (just kidding since I am fairly sure you are in that totally useless field
We need doctors, scientists, engineers. I don't know how to attract people into those fields. But look at medicine, in central Indiana someone comes out of med school and quite probably would go to IU Health where more than half the leadership and board have non-medical degrees. How often does an engineer become CEO of a car company in America? What's the last corporation to move a scientist into a CEO role? Maybe we need people who know the product trying to sell it more than people who know how to sell trying to learn the product?
Publically traded companies’ leadership has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and this is often in conflict with what engineering or scientific affairs would tell them.
I ascribe more MBAs to just being a byproduct of that being a somewhat generic degree. Law, medicine, etc are considered professional degrees and are much more specialized and there will be less of them.
In my MBA class, half of my classmates were technical people (mostly engineers) who were learning the business side and they all went back to working on engineering.
If you want to try to attract more people to go into medicine and high-tech, the worst thing you can do is to deflate their future salaries by government price setting.
I saw a quote once (pardon me if I screw it up):That is a whole new problem, goes to my issue on STEM. I've known a few local kids who were real stars on science olympiad and what not. Had great prospects in STEM. All chose the MBA route because of money. Our warped prioroties are pushing our best talent into a totally useless field (just kidding since I am fairly sure you are in that totally useless field
We need doctors, scientists, engineers. I don't know how to attract people into those fields. But look at medicine, in central Indiana someone comes out of med school and quite probably would go to IU Health where more than half the leadership and board have non-medical degrees. How often does an engineer become CEO of a car company in America? What's the last corporation to move a scientist into a CEO role? Maybe we need people who know the product trying to sell it more than people who know how to sell trying to learn the product?
A company is healthy when it's run by engineers. (doctors, scientists,...)
Sick when it's run by accountants. (MBA's,'...)
And dead when it's run by lawyers.
I
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Ask the people who used to work for Westinghouse (the real one - not the weird conglomeration it’s become) about how it was when the Engineers ran it. They’d disagree with the first clause of the quote.
Did Jobs have an MBA, or Gates? Dell was in Business School when he started building computers.
I will tie this to a different thread, after WW2 corps were run by ex combat officers. I think that gave them experience in caring for "the men". Once they left, we have replaced them with people who view their only fiduciary requirements are to shareholders. I believe until 1980 or so we were more willing to see multiple shareholders.
But think of it this way, the bean counter heading up a health conglomerate, are they more interested in my good health or profit? The bean counter at the insurance company, same question. Who is looking out for me?
My last dr quit, but it was interesting to have her. She flat out refused to meet the corporate requirements for number of patients in a day. She said she believed it was important to let the patient feel comfortable in describing their health, not on a quiz show about to get cut off any second. I think she was right. Look at the average time docs spend with patients. Who do you want determining how much time your doc has to see you? Mind you, government may not be better.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’re selecting very special cases and no, Gates didn’t even have an undergrad degree so I’m not sure he’s a good example.
To your point about combat officers - everyone is a non-combat officer until they go to combat. When there’s combat to go.
Right, but our modern corporate officers almost never have a military background. The upper classes used to serve. So combat or not, I think the modern American business class has largely lost their concern for those that serve under them.
if you're concerned about the workers, no corp is going to elevate you to any high level decision making position.
corps embrace the guy who'd fire his own mother on the day before her 20th yr anniversary with the company, or move the factory that supports half the town to a 3rd world labor cost country, and leave the town with the cleanup.
it's not some crazy coincidence that those who make the decisions, either don't give a sht about the working class, or can't let concern affect any decisions.
all that said, remember, a corp is not a person.. it's an inanimate thing that's programmed to maximize returns for those in power, which isn't even always most of the shareholders.
the inanimate corporation will never do what's best for the worker, the town, or even the country, absent a gun to their head.
nor is there anyone in a big corp with the power to do so, even if they wanted to.
and only govt holds that gun.
thus why the moneyed interests have purchased both main political parties, and will purchase any third or forth party, the instant they pose a significant enough threat.
it isn't personal. it's just business.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I looked this up the other day. Per the source of all knowledge, the Interstate system budgeted for 12 years at a total program cost of $27B. It ended up taking 35 years at a cost of $119B. There was surely scope creep from the original budget/plan but not 5x. Our government cannot do anything in a cost effective manner.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/target.cfm
To fall back to CO, the interstate was built by private contractors. It's their fault, private companies can't do anything on budget
.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Ummm, no. That’s not how government contracting works.To fall back to CO, the interstate was built by private contractors. It's their fault, private companies can't do anything on budget
That's lazy thinking, Ranger. It's why it's difficult to take some of my conservative brethren seriously when it comes to government policy initiatives.
So when a corporation signs to build a tank/plane/tank for $X and the final product costs $2X, why is that? Did the corporation really budget properly and the military screwed up? Or did they underbid to get the project?
Reading about the disaster that is the F35, it appears the government made changes (VTOL for the Marines) but at the same point Lockheed-Martin seems to have badly underestimated the cost of developing new technology.
Did you read your link? There was never a "budget" for $27B. Instead that was an estimate based upon 1945 design standards. Those standards included railroad grade crossings, no grade separation for some road intersections, lower design speeds, and some two lane roads. Those standards are a much lower cost and as you know those standards were never used to build the final product.
"ended up taking 35 yrs at a cost of $119 billion".
ya think the 35 yrs or the $119 billion is gonna cover the 465 to Btown leg of I 69.
whether healthcare or infrastructure, the reason govt "appears" incapable of doing things in a cost effective manner, is because the capitalists the right is in love with captured the govt.
if one wonders why the ACA seems expensive, ask the healthcare industrial complex who wrote it, and wrote it to benefit themselves, not the citizenry.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s not cut and dry. It could be a variety of factors ranging from scope creep / amendments to underbidding to all shades of everything in between. The government, where the military is concerned, ALWAYS makes changes.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Cool. Why is it lazy thinking? I asked Marv for examples where the government spent money in accordance with budget and policy initiatives. He cane up with the Interstate system. He was wrong.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Huh? Fine it was a cost estimate. I guess the difference between budget and estimate is nuance and as you’ve pointed out, I don’t understand nuance.
“Adding the BPR's and Committee's estimates, the total came to $27.2 billion. As debate continued on the National Highway Program in 1955 and 1956, all parties were trying to find a way to fund a $27 billion Interstate Highway Program over 10 years, having lost sight of the limitations of the estimate.”
Back in those days, federally budgeted amounts were meaningful, like they are for state and local government today (Because state and local government can't constantly issue bonds). This is a far cry from the federal government now which never considers a total budget where congress actually prioritizes expenditures. You know like deciding whether to prioritize buying weapons or building roads.
More important than the nuance between an estimate and a budget, though, is the standards to which the interstate system was to be built. Those changed as explained in the link.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Isn’t that the point? A commission went off half cocked without first agreeing to a set of standards that were buildable and sustainable. That adds project cost.
I’m not an amateur in this arena. I was a defense contractor for almost 10 years. We tried our damndest to do our jobs to keep costs controlled as our business model was not seeking to maximize profit - we were almost operated as a non-profit. No matter how hard we tried, the specs always changed and the cheese was always moved. The government is not a fiscally responsible entity.
The per capita cost of our health care is a disaster now and was prior to ACA. According to OECD below are some 2017 per capita health care expenditures:
US 10,224
Switzerland 8,009 (second highest)
Germany 5,728 (third highest)
Sweden 5,511
AVG of the industrialized countries 5,280
Japan 4,717 (10th highest)
The future outlook of our nations budget, allocation of resources etc would be staggeringly different if our per capita spending was average or even 20-30% over average.
I'm not even going to attempt to address how the US would pay for universal care, it's out of my pay grade, I will add some perspective from someone that has spent nearly 2 decades in universal care.
There are some pretty crazy numbers being thrown around regarding the amount we pay in taxes here. I have yet to meet a person that pays close to what I have read in this thread.
I just checked my last pay stub and my healthcare contribution constitutes approx 5% of my monthly paycheck.
Of course we pay VAT which is 21%, although healthcare, education, (some) groceries are exempt and charged at around 5%.
My total tax contribution (not counting any VAT I pay for various products) is 28-29%. That's on a salary above the national average, but not significantly so.
What I find interesting is that in my time here I can count on 1 hand the number of times I have heard people complain about taxes. I hae my own theories on this, but haven't really dug into it.
My healthcare is excellent and equals or exceeds that which I received in the US. There is also a thriving private industry for those that want to and can pay more.
Czech Republic.
The OECD average is 25%, but that is deceiving because that's only income tax and in some countries (like here) there are additional taxes for healthcare and social contributions.
Here we pay around 28% total.
I keep seeing 50% thrown around and that is way too high. Sure, you can find wealthy people in Scandinavia that may pay that much, but they are the outlier and not representative of the vast majority of the people.
I would say for most countries when everything is added in (not VAT) the average is between 25-30%, far below the 50% that gets thrown around.
The Czech Republic is at the low end for Europe. You’d be wrong about the taxes paid in other European countries: https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2017/382#ftn7
They pay significantly more than your estimate. The estimated cost for a true “Medicare for All” program is almost as much as the US government collects in federal revenue now. If we’re going to actually pay for it, and not accelerate our decent into bankruptcy, federal taxes collected will have to be nearly doubled. That would put us around France and Belgium, or higher, for taxation.
I know one person who wont be voting for Harris.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/k...ciate-ourselves-from-this-travesty-2019-02-20
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/k...ciate-ourselves-from-this-travesty-2019-02-20
if Medicare for all cost as much as the US govt currently collects in revenue, ($3.4 trillion), that would still be less than we spend on healthcare now, ($3.67 trillion), and everyone would be covered.
Medicare and Medicaid current pay considerably less per procedure than private plans or out of pocket, thus if everyone was billed at the Medicare or Medicaid rates, all currently paying private rates would all pay considerably less for the same care than they now do.
those are all stats, not subjective opinions.
in addition, Medicare for all would divorce healthcare from employment.
doing so both frees employees to move about in their career as they choose and work hours that fit their life, and frees employers to make all hiring, work hours, and offshoring decisions, without having to factor in a $1,000 per mo per full time employee healthcare fixed cost into every decision.
you're wanting to say a dollar spent on taxes is different than a dollar spent on healthcare, which it isn't.
all that's important, is how much do we spend on healthcare and taxes combined, not how that sum total is partitioned off between healthcare and taxes.
why are you arguing against having more people covered, at less cost than we now pay to have less people covered, and freeing up both employers and employees to make career and staffing and locating decisions, without employees or employers having to factor in healthcare or healthcare costs on everything?
We can provide links to each other all day, here is another:
These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
- Belgium- 42.80%
- Germany - 39.90%
- Denmark - 38.90%
- Hungary- 35%
- Austria -34%
- Greece - 25.4%
- OECD Average - 25.10%
- UK - 24.90%
- USA - 22.70%
- New Zealand - 16.40%
- Israel - 15.50%
- Korea - 13%
- Mexico -9.50%
- Chile - 7%
I work in an office with the following Nationalities:
Norway
Finland
Denmark
Sweden
UK
Spain
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Poland
Czech Rep
France
Russia
Nobody (with an average salary) pays close to to the 50% that gets thrown around here a lot. Very high earners may in some countries, but the vast majority do not come close to this level.
I'm not going to argue what's bets, but at least people can have the discussion with accurate information.
After asking my wife to help translate the info, I found that we (in the CR) pay a flat rate of 15% income tax, 4.5% healthcare contribution, 6.5% social contribution for a total tax rate of 26%.
By taking advantage of a incentive for retirement savings, I actually paid slightly under 25% this year. While some countries pay more, the average Joe in most are far closer to 25% than 50%.
When you look at all the gets done with this money it's a bargain. If they announced an increase tomorrow, I would have no complaints.
People get so caught up in comparing this number to that number, but it only tells a small part of the whole story. The benefits to the quality of life for the average Joe is outstanding.
When people try to pare all this down to raw numbers, they miss a large part of the story.
I'm not going to try to convince anyone of anything (it's pointless on this site) but people need to consider the whole story rather than look at a few numbers and think they know the answer.
Should the "whole story" include the total tax picture? In the US we have state and local income, sales, and property taxes that may or may not be the same as other countries. Other places have VAT's too. For comparison purposes, imcome taxes don't tell us very much.
Last edited:
Similar threads
