Debate: Part 1 of 3

I have 3 essays to write for Doug and Rick. This is the first. I still need to respond to Rick's "rules of engagement" post, as well as minor tirade of his at the homo blog.. These take a long time to do because I actually research it out and crunch the numbers, so the other 2 will maybe be done tomorrow.

This post deals with military spending and the Veterans Administration. Original at Doug's blog here.

Clinton did cut funding to the military.

It is true that Bill Clinton did reduce military spending. The link Doug provided is to a conservative think tank opinion piece - meaning just that, it's an opinion. It's also worth noting that for much of his term, Clinton was dealing with a Republican majority in Congress. The Republican Congress had to pass the budget before Clinton could sign it into law.

Foreign Affairs magazine has a more nuanced take that actually explores the whys of the budgets. Military spending was on a generally downward trend as a result of the end of the cold war, and..

Clinton's actual defense budgets were $2 billion more than the final Bush defense plan for 1994-99.
[...]
The nonpay portion of the operations and maintenance account in the defense budget, which funds training, readiness, and maintenance, is 13 percent higher now than when Bush left office.

Moreover, if the spending on operations and maintenance is calculated on a per capita basis, it is nearly 40 percent higher today (2000) than in 1993.
[...]
Zoellick is also off base in his critique of the Clinton administration. He writes that it has cut the military by around 40 percent. But it was the Bush administration that reduced the active forces by 444,000, or 21 percent, in four years, unlike Clinton, who cut it only 16 percent over seven years.

The point is not that defense spending was reduced during the Clinton administration, but that Doug characterizes it with the slogan "massive cuts", despite the fact that the cuts were neither "massive" and in fact were less then were cut during the Bush 41 administration.

Defense spending ebbs and flows based on the needs of the military, and according to the military, Clinton's defense budgets were appropriate;

He should also read George Wilson's new book, which cites former Air Force Chief of Staff Ron Fogelman and former Army Deputy Chief of Staff Jay Gardner as stating that an annual defense budget of $250 billion, plus inflation, should be plenty for the armed services in the post-Cold War period if spent properly.

The actual budget was $280 billion, $30 billion more than the military said was sufficient.

Next up, the VA and socialized medicine...

as for VA, let me rephrase that. Clinton's funding increases for VA were so minimal that they seemed like cuts because they did not keep up with increasing costs.

He might have rephrased it (still incorrectly) but he did not correct it on the blog itself. It still has the bald faced lie.

The budget stats for the federal government can be seen in an Excel spreadsheet, here. Between 1992 and 2000, the VA budget increased by 34%. Economic inflation in the same period was 23.8% according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of course, there are other factors involved in the "cost" of the VA besides inflation, but it is a good measuring stick. It's also important to note that there are separate entities within the VA and budget monies are allocated by the Secretary. The VA provides administrative services and the VHA provides the medical side. It's up to the Secretary to tell the President and Congress what sort of budget they need.

The point is, Doug claimed that Clinton "massively cut" the VA budget, and he's lying. He claims that the increases did not "keep up with increasing costs", and does not support that claim what-so-ever. Is he basing that assumption on his own experiences at the VA? Does he think every facility is the same as the other?

By way of comparison, the Bush administration increased the VA budget by 41% between 2000 and 2006 (for which stats are available to compare). Inflation during that period was 16.55%. This is a substantial increase, but again, there are other cost factors. There was no prolonged "hot war" during the Clinton administration where there were casualties. To date, there have been over 27,000 casualties (wounded) in Iraq. Many of these wounded need very expensive treatment due to the traumatic nature of their injuries.

And again - the point is the false claims and exaggerations that Doug continues to make.

Doug continues;

And as for your comment that VA is a model of socialized medicine, there is a critical difference. Socialized medicine requires folks to pay a tax for an overall tax system that claims to provide free health insurance for all, but really takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which would be noble on the surface, except first such a practice should never be forced upon anyone, and socialized medicine has been proven to be a failed system.

That's just barely coherent, but let me just say this. The Veterans Health Administration is exactly the definition of socialized medicine. The tax payers of the United States fund the VA. Nobody has any choice. You cannot "opt out". The VA then "insures" a segment of the population that is determined by a number of factors. Not everyone qualifies, and there are different levels of "service connected", but those that do are guaranteed free health care. Finally, the medical services are provided by employees of the Federal Government. The doctors, the nurses, and all the administrative staff are employed by the Federal Government, and are paid by tax payers.

That is exactly the definition of socialized medicine, and Doug said it is "awesome".

Socialized medicine requires folks to pay a tax for an overall tax system that claims to provide free health insurance for all, but really takes from the rich and gives to the poor, which would be noble on the surface, except first such a practice should never be forced upon anyone, and socialized medicine has been proven to be a failed system. Canada and Great Britain suffers from inferior care, long waits for critical services and surgeries, and a loss of superior doctors because the incentive of a good living is gone.

That's not true. The World Health organization ranked 190 country's health care, and the United States ranks #37. Canada ranks 30, and the U.K. comes in at 18. Number 1 in the world is the socialized medicine program in.... France. The rankings do factor in things such as wait times, which are drastically over blown. For example, in the U.K., it may take a little longer to get an elective procedure, but in the U.S., there are some 47 million people with no health insurance what so ever, and their wait times are infinite. It's not unheard of to see HMO's denying life saving care for some US citizens.

I have no idea how he can claim that "takes from the rich and gives to the poor". Every social system in the United States does that! The Medi-caid programs, Medi-care, Social Security, VA, DoD health care, all paid for by tax payers. Hell, his own son had his cancer treatment paid for by taxpayers, and this is his attitude? Good god.

The doctors in those systems do make a "good living". Doug offers no substance to his assertion, yet again.. and again.. and again.. But hey.. I will. Let's look at it..

250,000 pounds a year translates to US$ 507,248/- a year, which perhaps only what the specialist surgeons and Interventional cardiologists in America can hope to make - and yet it's the kind of money that some of the Family medicine MDs - (called General Practitioners in UK) are making.

Official data showed that 50% of the England GPs were making more than 100,000 Pounds a year (US$ 202,899/- in July 2007 Exchange rates) and 10% of them made more than 150,000 Pounds a year (US$ 304,349/- in July 2007 Exchange rates)

Is that not a "good living"? Why do you keep lying Doug?

Doug continues;

The medical profession there is nothing more than just another government job. This is why people come to the U.S. for most procedures. VA, however, is not a system like that at all.

People go for very specialized treatment from the best providers. Sometimes those are US doctors. Sometimes those are European doctors. It works both ways. But notice how Doug once again exagerates with zero substance. "Most proceedures"? What the hell? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

But, medical care in the VA is exactly "just another government job". The clinicians are FEDERAL GOVERNMENT employees! The VA is exactly the sort of the system as in the U.K. and France. It is nearly identical except that the VA doesn't cover all US citizens, but just those that qualify, i.e., vets.

I would also point out the the vast majority of new doctors do their specialization training with the VA. Each VA hospital is a "teaching hospital". A vet is very likely going to get treatment from a young doctor learning his trade, and supervised by a long time Federal employee physician.

And Doug calls the whole system "awesome", thus he is calling socialized medicine "awesome".

VA is a thank you for their service, because most folks do not wish to place their lives on the line for freedom. That is fine, the military is not for all people, and I do not frown on anyone that has never served. However, regardless of who you are you ought to thank those that served, and give special thanks to those that did not make it through their service without injury. To compare VA to socialized medicine, Tom, is both naive, and irresponsible. Don't insult me like that again.

Every time I open a web browser at work, it loads the VA home page, where at the top is;

"To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and
his orphan." - These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln during his Second Inaugural Address, reflect the philosophy and principles that guide the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs in serving the Nation's veterans and
their families.

The VA is not a "thank you". It is doing the right thing by those who sacrificed. Comparing it to a "socialized" program is both responsible AND accurate. It is a collective taxation to pay for services for others. It is THE definition in design and implementation. The Federal Government runs the entire thing for pete's sake. There is no "private sector" involvement in it except some participation by contractors.

We "thank" veterans by treating them with dignity and respect, and hell.. just saying "thank you".

For what it's worth, I don't advocate a socialized program for the medical side, but rather the administrative side. I think a single payer system would be fantastic. More than half of all medical care in the United States is already socialized through Medicaid, Medi-care, VA and DOD. Virtually the entire rest is contracted. Doctors do NOT get paid what they bill. They get paid contracted rates, unless they are elective procedures such as plastic surgery.

And so there you have it..