Well that’s why I keep saying under the assumption both sides buy in. Both sides continue to raise defense spending because they both bought in. I’ve seen essentially no real effort at either side to reduce it
This is also my view. I think fiscal conservatism should be less concerned with specific policy. It should simply be seen as the demand that future generations do not pay for tax cuts or entitlement spending enacted today. Be it a new program, or tax cuts, fine. Just pay for it. Want big entitlements? then let’s ALL pay enough in taxes to keep it in the black. Don’t keep kicking the can down the road. Pay for it in total as we spend it, and let’s see how popular such programs really are.Tax cuts? Same thing. First manage to actually pay for them. Propose the kind of spending cuts to entitlements that will keep us in the black even with the loss in revenue. Let’s see just how much blue-collar Joe really wants tax cuts when grand-ma’s entitlements are actually slashed.
Pay as we go, without passing a snow-balling bill on to the next generation.
2 Likes
Yeah, I almost tried to get into this but the post was already really long, haha.
I think the way to do that would be to basically enforce that any “off-label” treatment be catalogued in a research registry of some sort. I tried to hint at this with a rare-case exception for situations where the evidence is inconclusive or insufficient, so docs that want to try something that’s innovative in an area where there is no research would have that option. I’d mostly be trying to play whack-a-mole with stuff that has been studied enough to know that it doesn’t really work and is still regularly done.
1 Like
See the total US tax revenue in millions USD vs the rest of the 35 nation OECD (2000-2016). You’ll note that the US Government’s revenue dollars are far greater than the rest of the 35 nation OECD, despite only having about 25% of that group’s population.
Fiscal conservatism must be concerned with policy. The US doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Both parties are culpable.
2 Likes
So you should favor my interpretation of fiscal conservatism. If we actually have to pay for our spending as we go, maybe we would be more concerned with our spending. If we want it, fine, pay for it. If we don’t want to pay for it, then we don’t get it.
That priority is a “policy” choice. If you want a balanced budget/lower debt, you have to get into the weeds of policy.
We agree by the way. I think we’re just saying it differently.
I agree with @Sloth that fiscal conservatism is at its core policy neutral (and should be. I want fiscal conservatism no matter what party is in the WH or Congress). But I will also add that for those that want to shrink government for ideological reasons, robust adherence to policy neutral fiscal conservatism will get them far closer to their ideal of small government than the current “conservative” approach to taxes.
The government is never going to shrink under supply side economics. And that’s because supply side economics relies on the mythical idea of a free lunch. Always remember the mantra of supply siders that “deficits don’t matter” is the exact same - literally the exact same - as saying “government spending doesn’t matter.”
3 Likes
Yeah…It’s really difficult with an issue this multifaceted lol. People write entire books about this sort of thing.
I definitely agree with your off label idea.
Lol. True, and so will regulators! I can imagine the headaches…
I completely agree. Ronnie got tricked by the spending cuts that we’re coming “later”. The spending cuts never come.
Another consideration is that in those small countries, the population is about as diverse as an Alabama family tree. Meaning virtually all their genetics are more or less the same and do not have to account for the variety of diseases that different races are susceptible too. Further, since the per capita income of those small, un-diverse countries is usually high they tend to have a better and healthier quality of life.
I am pretty sure there is no Swedish version of “My 600 lb Life”.
1 Like
Sure that will work. People love it when the government comes between them and their doctors about what’s ailing them and what the proper treatments are… “You can sell any drug so long as it doesn’t make you feel good!”. “Sorry cancer patient, we know your gonna die and you know your gonna die, but no opiates! Those things can kill you! Just lay there and suffer like a good little boy and you’ll feel better when you’re dead.”
Drug prohibition has worked oh so well in the past, why not beat that dead horse.
Nobody wants the government to crack down on opiate prescriptions more than Heroin dealers. They are salivating at the prospect…
Oh yeah, this lovely gem. That stupid legislation drove up my insurance costs by double since implemented. Way more than $2500.
Get yourself the bronze plan… That way if you get into a life threatening accident, your deductible will only be $10,000. But the plan was cheap.
If you have normal medical needs, go to the ER and give them all false info so they cannot bill you because you cannot afford the deductible.
1 Like
Which is why they’d be free to pay for 3rd party coverage that sustains their instant gratification needs?
Imo, it’s more like “sorry cancer patient, stupidly expensive EoL care that isn’t treatment shouldn’t be paid for by the taxpayer. You want it? Go get 3rd party”
Maybe you’re right. It’d be better if govt (ie, taxpayers) funded an infinite amount of painkillers instead of making people do it themselves.
You mean the people that largely rely on addicts forming from over prescribed painkillers are looking forward to less addicts? Weird business model. Math…
1 Like
Ronnie didn’t get tricked to anything. In fact, he happily presided over additional spending, with a bunch going to defense.
1 Like
People are dying because the black market has been flooded with fentenyl. Do you want people to die, or at least get there drugs safely from a reliable source?
Ironically, I am being the liberal here. At least Dr’s will not prescribe lethal amounts of neferious who knows what. I’d rather an addiction dr give the addicts the safer drugs while nudging them toward treatment. And Dr’s should be free to do that.
And if they just want to be addicts and are not harming anyone, who cares? People have been opiate addicts for 20, 30, 40+ years and lived.
They are not lethal in controlled doses even high doses to those with high tolerances.
When the drugs are a crap shoot the body count rises. Let them get their drugs legally and safely.
If or when they want to be clean, they should have that option.
Imagine a guy walks in addicted to opiates for 20 years, you think berating them and cutting them off will help them? No, they will be extremely sick if they do that. And that leads to far riskier behavior where others can get hurt.
Let them have their oxycodone, who cares? Denying them has far more dyer consequences.
I neither want them to die nor do I want them to get drugs. It’s not an either or, it’s their call.
I also don’t support giving felons guns despite their ability to get them anyways
Sure, I have no problem with unlimited prescriptions when it’s paid for by a 3rd party. In a UHC scenario aftermarket doesn’t magically vanish.
Hey man, heroin is totally not that bad for you, you’re not harming anyone and some have lived for 20, 30, 40+ years.
Will you join my in my pursuit to end all schedule drugs?
Same with heroin
How are they being berated and cut off? I didn’t suggest making 3rd party insurance illegal (that could cover said addicts habit and rehab and inevitable relapse), I suggested not making the taxpayer pay for it in a UHC situation
I’m not one of those guys that thinks everyone is special. Some* people are pretty shit. Giving drug addicts a safe and legal way to fuel their addiction at the taxpayer expense just sounds patently absurd
Yeah. Just because they can get their fix legally doesn’t ameliorate the damage caused by the intoxication induced by the use of the drug. Alcohol has proven that pretty well.
3 Likes
“Drug overdoses killed 63,632 Americans in 2016. Nearly two-thirds of these deaths (66%) involved a prescription or illicit opioid”.
Just happened to see this figure today, and thought it might be of interest to those involved in the discussion above.
5 Likes
You’re conflating two issues, I was only talking about one.
I would like the numbers of illicit vs. prescription. The latter is likely to be much less.
Second, I also favor anti-addiction drugs like Suboxone, Subutex, Methadone, to be OTC, like pseudoephedrine so that people who want to can stop any time and not have to jump through hoops.
People don’t keep doing it because they love it, they do it because they get extremely sick if they don’t have it. Giving people options plus easy access to Naloxone would save lives in case of OD.