Govt spending never meets estimates, always goes over.

[Genx87]

WSJ

Let's start with the claim that a more pervasive federal role will restrain costs and thus make health care more affordable. We know that over the past four decades precisely the opposite has occurred. Prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health-care inflation ran slightly faster than overall inflation. In the years since, medical inflation has climbed 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Much of this reflects advances in technology and expensive treatments, but the contrast does contradict the claim of government as a benign cost saver.

And while he uses govt run medical programs. We have recent history on our side with the war in Iraq being magnitudes over the initial cost estimates. And medicare has in fact failed to be within a stones throw of inflation over the course of its lifetime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Govt spending never meets estimates?

Sad. The government is just lazy I guess. They need to work harder to spend more to meet the estimates, I guess.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Govt spending never meets estimates?

Sad. The government is just lazy I guess. They need to work harder to spend more to meet the estimates, I guess.

They always go over if you read the article.

 

[MotF Bane]

Government overspends, that's hardly shocking news.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Government overspends, that's hardly shocking news.

I agree however it is a reminder for us that those promising cost savings by plowing us into some govt run or mandated health system are full of it.

 

[her209]

What should the government do? Make the companies that underbid their projects to pony up the difference.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Genx87
WSJ

Let's start with the claim that a more pervasive federal role will restrain costs and thus make health care more affordable. We know that over the past four decades precisely the opposite has occurred. Prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health-care inflation ran slightly faster than overall inflation. In the years since, medical inflation has climbed 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. Much of this reflects advances in technology and expensive treatments, but the contrast does contradict the claim of government as a benign cost saver.

And while he uses govt run medical programs. We have recent history on our side with the war in Iraq being magnitudes over the initial cost estimates. And medicare has in fact failed to be within a stones throw of inflation over the course of its lifetime.

the bolded is possibly the dumbest thing i've ever read.

 

[PokerGuy]

Wait, you mean to tell me that the government spends more money than budgeted? Noooooo! That can't be true! Government is efficient and does things cheaper than private industry!

 

[StageLeft]

I knew this but it's nice to see it reminded to us.

What should the government do? Make the companies that underbid their projects to pony up the difference.

OR Attend project management 101.

Look, in the private industry if you manage a project and it's a complete cluster fvck you won't get another one, and if it's a real cluster your company won't get any more because it's done. With the government it will never disappear, so really it simply just matters a whole heck of a lot less if you suck at your job because the money will always come in. Most of your money comes not from services, which could be impacted by you giving sh*ty service, but by taxes, which you will get regardless.

 

[Phokus]

Govt spending never meets estimates, always goes over.

That's a lie, the CBO overestimated Medicare benefits by 35%

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs...-t-count-for-much.aspx

When Congress proposed a "doughnut hole" in Medicare benefits coverage, something no commercial policy had ever used, the CBO had to guess how the system would react. It overestimated the cost by about 35 percent, according to some estimates.

 

[0marTheZealot]

The thing is that the actual budget for any project will never get passed in Congress. So drafters always low-ball it so it can be approved then decry the cost overruns. It's just dirty politics, both sides are guilty of this. For example, everyone knew the F-22 was going to go over budget, but when it did, everyone acted surprised and outraged.

 

[JTsyo]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The thing is that the actual budget for any project will never get passed in Congress. So drafters always low-ball it so it can be approved then decry the cost overruns. It's just dirty politics, both sides are guilty of this. For example, everyone knew the F-22 was going to go over budget, but when it did, everyone acted surprised and outraged.

Yea, that's the thing. If you know it's really going to cost $600 million but budget for $500 million, people think they're getting a deal. Once you say you need the extra $100 million, they can't back out since they already sunk the $500 million into it.
The estimates are made with the nominal values and anyone with experience knows that's not what you get. Whatever they say heathcare is going to cost is going to be low. Factors like people living longer and new treatments to keep unhealthy people alive longer will add to the system and most likely those assumptions will be left out of the original budget.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

WSJ

Let's start with the claim that...

Let's start with the fact that it's an opinion piece in a Rupert Murdoch rag. Like Faux and the rest of his empire, they may slip in a fact or two, but only coincidentally.

The author may even have a point, but I wouldn't take anything from any source owned by Murdoch without considerable reliable corroboration.

 

[IronWing]

I think it might be a more reasonable thing to say that where public money intersects with private profit, overruns occur. Take the profit incentive out of contract overruns and watch them dry up.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I think it might be a more reasonable thing to say that where public money intersects with private profit, overruns occur. Take the profit incentive out of contract overruns and watch them dry up.

That sounds decidedly unreasonable; you are blaming cost overruns on the incorporation into these projects of private entities? It has nothing to do with government mismanaging the projects? The buck stops with who I pay for something to get done; I couldn't give less of a damn about issues they had with suppliers/vendors they identified and took under their wing. If I pay somebody and the project goes to crap because of things they should control, they didn't control properly.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

WSJ

Let's start with the claim that...

Let's start with the fact that it's an opinion piece in a Rupert Murdoch rag. Like Faux and the rest of his empire, they may slip in a fact or two, but only coincidentally.

The author may even have a point, but I wouldn't take anything from any source owned by Murdoch without considerable reliable corroboration.

attack the source, not the message... good job.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ironwing
I think it might be a more reasonable thing to say that where public money intersects with private profit, overruns occur. Take the profit incentive out of contract overruns and watch them dry up.

That sounds decidedly unreasonable; you are blaming cost overruns on the incorporation into these projects of private entities? It has nothing to do with government mismanaging the projects? The buck stops with who I pay for something to get done; I couldn't give less of a damn about issues they had with suppliers/vendors they identified and took under their wing. If I pay somebody and the project goes to crap because of things they should control, they didn't control properly.

The question is "Why didn't they control properly?" Was it plain old incompetence? Was it political cronyism? Incompetence can be fixed by replacing project managers. Cronyism runs so deep in the system it likely will take a Constitutional amendment to root it out. Look at Bush's Medicare D bill. By law, the fed's can't negotiate discounts with the drug companies. Of course the costs explode when this kind of cronyism is tolerated.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, you mean to tell me that the government spends more money than budgeted? Noooooo! That can't be true! Government is efficient and does things cheaper than private industry!

I know! Private industry never has contracts with change orders or cost overruns!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ironwing
I think it might be a more reasonable thing to say that where public money intersects with private profit, overruns occur. Take the profit incentive out of contract overruns and watch them dry up.

That sounds decidedly unreasonable; you are blaming cost overruns on the incorporation into these projects of private entities? It has nothing to do with government mismanaging the projects? The buck stops with who I pay for something to get done; I couldn't give less of a damn about issues they had with suppliers/vendors they identified and took under their wing. If I pay somebody and the project goes to crap because of things they should control, they didn't control properly.

The question is "Why didn't they control properly?" Was it plain old incompetence? Was it political cronyism? Incompetence can be fixed by replacing project managers. Cronyism runs so deep in the system it likely will take a Constitutional amendment to root it out. Look at Bush's Medicare D bill. By law, the fed's can't negotiate discounts with the drug companies. Of course the costs explode when this kind of cronyism is tolerated.

It's all of those reasons, each fighting for position at the top

 

[Patranus]

This is the same government that is going to tax for 10 years and then spend for 5 and call it "budget neutral"