VA wastes $300m on solar panels while patients wait to be treated

[clacy]

You can't make this stuff up.  They invest $300m in renewable energy projects that likely have a 20+ year payback while they let Vets die on secret waiting lists.  This goes to show how corrupt, dysfunctional and bureaucratic government gets over time.

It's really sad actually.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/ ... cemeteries

http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2140

[clacy]

The whitehouse.gov article is aptly titled... "VA Leading by Example"

That is a great example of what we can expect out of government run health care down the road.

[doodle]

This is why I don't understand money....there are people available to install solar panels which is a positive....and doctors available to treat sick people. Money just confuses things for me. If those people weren't installing the solar panels, what would they have been doing that day? Probably sitting on their coach complaining about a lack of work. So I don't see how their installing them on the roof inhibits the doctors from treating sick people

[Pointedstick]

This is why I don't understand money....there are people available to install solar panels which is a positive....and doctors available to treat sick people. Money just confuses things for me. If those people weren't installing the solar panels, what would they have been doing that day? Probably sitting on their coach complaining about a lack of work. So I don't see how their installing them on the roof inhibits the doctors from treating sick people

Since this is the federal government we're talking about, it's not really about money, it's about priorities. If they really wanted to install solar panels and also treat sick veterans (you know, their one and only mission), they could have. But they didn't. The fact that they spent their money on solar panels is merely a symptom of the problem that they had abandoned their core mission.

...Which is totally predictable, because unlike in the market, the only real form of oversight for government agencies is public outrage. So change only happens when things become so bad that large numbers of people start to notice, by which point you can bet that things have become really bad. You know, installing-solar-panels-while-sick-veterans-die bad.

[Pointedstick]

Holy crap, that's a lot of dollars. That sort of makes it even more obvious that it's not a money problem. There are probably entire European government health care systems that run on less money and competently treat 10 times as many people.

[clacy]

This is why I don't understand money....there are people available to install solar panels which is a positive....and doctors available to treat sick people. Money just confuses things for me. If those people weren't installing the solar panels, what would they have been doing that day? Probably sitting on their coach complaining about a lack of work. So I don't see how their installing them on the roof inhibits the doctors from treating sick people

Since this is the federal government we're talking about, it's not really about money, it's about priorities. If they really wanted to install solar panels and also treat sick veterans (you know, their one and only mission), they could have. But they didn't. The fact that they spent their money on solar panels is merely a symptom of the problem that they had abandoned their core mission.

Though I understand your point, the $300M on solar panels is a simply distraction to the real issue of the VA's problems though. 

When I consider that the annual VA budget is $164 billion dollars, I think focusing on a $300 M expense is missing the forest for the weeds.  Too often, management response to a real issue like the VA's is to tighten up the bean counting operations, rather than get at the root of the problem.

While I agree there are bigger issues than a $300m line item in the VA's budget, it's symptomatic of the way governmental agencies end up being bloated, inefficient and wasteful. 

Bad decisions, compounded by more bad decisions, will cause a privet sector business to put themselves out of business over time. 

With governmental agencies, they just continue to get worse and worse and there's not a lot that the general public can do about it.

They are also much more easily persuaded to make political decisions.  This was an obvious political move that was pushed on the VA by the White House.

[TripleB]

This is why I don't understand money....there are people available to install solar panels which is a positive....and doctors available to treat sick people. Money just confuses things for me. If those people weren't installing the solar panels, what would they have been doing that day? Probably sitting on their coach complaining about a lack of work. So I don't see how their installing them on the roof inhibits the doctors from treating sick people

I don't mean this as a personal attack. I notice most Liberals don't seem to understand money or economics. In your example, we should be able to have both solar panels and healthcare because the concept of money doesn't make sense to you.

What Libertarians understand about money and economics is that people are trading their life energy for money so that they can use that money to buy something they want or need more than their life energy.

While you may not see a difference between someone spending their time sitting on a couch complaining about lack of work, and actually doing the work, Libertarians notice a huge difference. If you're sitting at home on your couch, you're not expending gas to drive to work. You're not putting extra stress on your body that results in repetitive stress injury. You're not spending time away from your wife/children which when you do spend time away from them, you lose relationship value.

Libertarians look at decision making on the margin. Suppose someone offered the unemployed solar panel maker $1/hour to install panels. Otherwise, he's unemployed. Does he do it? No because the cost of gas will exceed the value of the job. He'd be losing money to accept that job.

Suppose he can't find work for several months, or several years, or until he runs out of money. Then he decides to change fields. He learns a new trade. Goes back to school. Becomes an apprentice. He realizes that no one is willing to pay him to ins all solar panels because people don't value his services above the point where it makes sense for him to work (perhaps because it wouldn't even cover his gas to drive there).

What does the solar panel installer go back to school for? In a free market, he picks a job that he like that aligns with the needs of society because society will be the ones paying for his new services. And if he wants to make money, he'll pick a job that society values high enough to pay him well. Now this man may not like the job that he's most qualified for that pays the most. So perhaps he accepts a slightly lower wage to perform a job he enjoys more. That's his decision because money isn't everything in deciding on a job.

However, in any event, if he's able to make money at his new job, it means by definition, in a free market, he's creating value for someone else. He's doing something that will cover his cost of gas, expenses, and still make a profit. He's filling the needs of someone who's willing to pay him. His customer will be trading his or her life energy to do a job, earn money, and give that money to our former solar panel installer to do his new job. Because this man is now doing something valuable to someone else. Maybe he's doing something that YOU benefit from more than solar panels.

Ever go to a store and something was out of stock perhaps because of manufacturing problems? Or make an appointment at the doctor's office and it's a 2-month wait at every local doctor because there's a shortage of doctors? Or try to get an HVAC repair man to come to your house in July only to find out every HVAC man is booked for two weeks? Well maybe our former solar panel repairman decides to do one of these jobs that the market is demanding and there is a shortage of labor for. And now your life is better because the solar repair man changed jobs to something that society actually values enough to pay him for.

I'm sure this is all very confusing to you and most Liberals because in fantasy Liberal land, people do things for the good of society because they are good people and want the world to be good and money is just this weird thing that greedy people use to marginalize others. And when people are unemployed it's not because they are too lazy to learn a new trade or unqualified, it's because fat cat CEOs flying on private jets weren't willing to share their wealth.  And we should all be able to get unlimited solar panels and unlimited healthcare if it wasn't for greedy people because resources are unlimited in fantasy land.

PS - your premise is incorrect. There's not doctors available to treat all sick people. The AMA, through their joint-venture with the government has created a monopoly on training doctors, which has led to an artificial shortage. To be really clear, there's not enough doctors available to treat all sick people, at the current price-fixed rates that the government has set for healthcare.

Many doctors have decided over the last decade to cut back on their hours to enjoy their leisure time or retire altogether rather than see more patients at cutthroat government rates (Medicare/Medicaid). If the government raised the amount of money it offered to doctors to treat patients (including VA patients), then doctors would make decisions on the margin to work more hours, and see more patients. Maybe that extra hour of leisure time wasn't worth giving up for $100 at crappy existing reimbursement rates, but it is worth giving up at $200/hour. Where would the government get the extra money to pay doctors more to incentivize them to use less leisure time? By forgoing installation of solar panels and other boondoggle widget programs.

Of course, I already know your counter point should be that doctors are being greedy and should work 100 hours a week for free until all sick people everywhere are cured. And a doctor shouldn't decide to cut back hours worked from 60 hours per week down to 40 hours per week, to spend more time with family, while sick people are waiting for care, simply because the government cut their reimbursement in order to keep the solar panel installer from sitting on his couch by giving him a boondoggle project to do. That doctor is being selfish for valuing spending time with his children more than historically low government reimbursement rates on healthcare.

[doodle]

Thanks for the tome. I prefer not to be pigeon holed. Hell, I went to a liberal college and I got into routine arguments with my professors and classmates when they would go on some Marxist diatribe? Most of my research papers I wrote cited from the Cato institute or Heritage foundation. I don't have very strong beliefs about much of anything....mostly I'm just confused and in doubt although I'm happy to argue any side or another. In order for their to be discussion and debate here someone has to argue the other side but don't think that I really "believe" what I write.

[Kshartle]

TripleB I've explained all that in extremely verbose fashion as well as extremely "brief" sound bites. Technovilist has been even briefer and possibly clearer.

While it appears many liberals don't understand the purpose of money or the concept of economics, I don't think a greater understanding would do that much to change how they feel about concepts like the VA and the obvious waste.

If you have a disagreement about stuff like this there is always a chance for the (socialist?) to make the fantasy claim that if we just could pick the correct government officials or got lucky enough this can still work. If we just write the correct laws then we can somehow get a fast cut past the market sorting out and fixing our problems. 

You can argue that the market would allocate the resources and people would in total get more of what they want and do more of what they want to than if government is involved, but you can't conclusively prove it because the evidence is all anecdotal. So you can never prove it to a believer. You can put forward theories that seem brutally obviously correct but people still want a shortcut and they truly deep down think the threat of violence can improve some things more than the marketplace. I think none of the dismal failure after failure can dissuade them because it's based on a fantasy. You have to be willing to set aside the fantasy or utopia thinking we take a short cut there with better laws and benevolent masters before the economics of the issues can't be ignored anymore.

Anyway it's exciting to hear someone who really understands economics well describe the process in terms of supply and demand and artificial shortages and surpluses stemming from price fixing. People have a hard time not just viewing the government as another economic player. They think because it's a group of humans it's nearly identical to a corporate entity. Few understand that a free market can never truly exist as long as these entities exist. Liberals (or whatever) will identify problems and somehow blame a market failing. It's as if they believe if the market isn't supplying what they value there should be some way it (other humans) should be forced to provide it or incentivized with stolen money.

It's not a lack of understanding of money or economics that really separates the libertarians or people with a high-level economic understanding, it's different personal beliefs about how the world should work and what other human beings are, fundamentally. At least this has been my experience. It doesn't matter if you explain how the roads would be better, the schools, healthcare, banking etc. etc. if the market was free in those areas. The fantasy can't be shattered by any of that in my opinion.

I'm still not sure what can shatter it. I don't think very much. The only hope is the children and that they shun it. I think only a total collapse can do it because the state starts educating them very very early and spends a lot of time with them, much more than most parents.

As for the VA, check and see who's related to the owners of the solar panel companies.

Money didn't screw it up, violence did. I promise you the VA paid 300 million for 100 million worth of goods and services. It's able to do this because it was using stolen money. It didn't have to earn that money first.

[Kshartle]

In order for their to be discussion and debate here someone has to argue the other side but don't think that I really "believe" what I write.

Productive discussion arises from disagreements about held beliefs. Surely there is enough difference of opinion about things here that no one needs to pretend to believe something in order to spur discussion/debate.

It would be much valuable to actually put your true beliefs up to scrutiny and not just play devil's advocate, in my opinion. And I think this is true for everyone. Let's make this a place of honesty firstly, and civility in spite of intense debate.

[moda0306]

I'm sure this is all very confusing to you and most Liberals because in fantasy Liberal land, people do things for the good of society because they are good people and want the world to be good and money is just this weird thing that greedy people use to marginalize others. And when people are unemployed it's not because they are too lazy to learn a new trade or unqualified, it's because fat cat CEOs flying on private jets weren't willing to share their wealth.  And we should all be able to get unlimited solar panels and unlimited healthcare if it wasn't for greedy people because resources are unlimited in fantasy land.

K,

This is really something.  I hope it's 90 % hyperbole.

[moda0306]

Millions might think that. We have 300 million in this country, so that's really not saying much.

The occupy movement was filled with a lot of hippy fringe liberals that don't know Econ very well. If we are talking about the fringe idiocy of a group, then libertarians don't know Econ either... They're just wannabe drunk driver sociopaths that simply want to be able to do whatever they want to do. (I'm not saying many libertarians are like this... Not trying to be mean... But there are SOME like that and it's wreckless to constantly talk about the entire group that way.)

So if we are going to talk about the fringes all the time, this could get pretty ugly (and at times already has).

[doodle]

In order for their to be discussion and debate here someone has to argue the other side but don't think that I really "believe" what I write.

Productive discussion arises from disagreements about held beliefs. Surely there is enough difference of opinion about things here that no one needs to pretend to believe something in order to spur discussion/debate.

It would be much valuable to actually put your true beliefs up to scrutiny and not just play devil's advocate, in my opinion. And I think this is true for everyone. Let's make this a place of honesty firstly, and civility in spite of intense debate.

How many times in your life have you believed something and then later gone on to change your mind or find out that your beliefs were mistaken? Why should I think that anything that I believe today won't change in the future? It always has before.

I also recognize that all of the models that we construct and variables that we analyze fall far short of describing reality. We simplify things in order to make them intelligible. We label and categorize things in order to ascribe them sort of consistent meaning or behavior however reality is much more complex than this. For these broad social and economic topics that we discuss here we cannot isolate the variables and say that there is a clear causation between one event and another. There are to many moving and interdependent variables....which is why economics will never be considered a hard science. Also, many of our discussions deal with surface issues that rest on deeper philosophical differences of opinion about the meaning of life. Since life has no objective meaning there are no ultimately correct answers.

[doodle]

My money comment simply was trying to draw attention to the way in which money can benefit our economy but also inhibit human productivity and labor. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that if one takes money out of the picture and isolates the particular situation at the VA at that particular moment in time...whether contractors instal solar panels or not should have no bearing on whether doctors treat patients.

[TripleB]

The occupy movement was filled with a lot of hippy fringe liberals that don't know Econ very well. If we are talking about the fringe idiocy of a group, then libertarians don't know Econ either... They're just wannabe drunk driver sociopaths that simply want to be able to do whatever they want to do. (I'm not saying many libertarians are like this... Not trying to be mean... But there are SOME like that and it's wreckless to constantly talk about the entire group that way.)

Interestingly, and I admit I am a sample size of one, I've never met a single Libertarian that fell into the drunk drive sociopath category, whereas every single Liberal I've ever met fell into the "failed econ socialist" category.

Where are the intelligent, economics-understanding Liberals?

And where are these drunk driver sociopath libertarians that want to piss on poor people dying in the streets that I hear so much about?

[TripleB]

My money comment simply was trying to draw attention to the way in which money can benefit our economy but also inhibit human productivity and labor. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that if one takes money out of the picture and isolates the particular situation at the VA at that particular moment in time...whether contractors instal solar panels or not should have no bearing on whether doctors treat patients.

Except for the fact that the only reason contractors are installing solar panels and doctors are treating patients is for money. So you can't take money out of the equation.

[Pointedstick]

The occupy movement was filled with a lot of hippy fringe liberals that don't know Econ very well. If we are talking about the fringe idiocy of a group, then libertarians don't know Econ either... They're just wannabe drunk driver sociopaths that simply want to be able to do whatever they want to do. (I'm not saying many libertarians are like this... Not trying to be mean... But there are SOME like that and it's wreckless to constantly talk about the entire group that way.)

Interestingly, and I admit I am a sample size of one, I've never met a single Libertarian that fell into the drunk drive sociopath category, whereas every single Liberal I've ever met fell into the "failed econ socialist" category.

Where are the intelligent, economics-understanding Liberals?

And where are these drunk driver sociopath libertarians that want to piss on poor people dying in the streets that I hear so much about?

Yes, I have to say I agree. I have met many libertarians who were arrogant know-it-all jerks, but no "drunk driver sociopaths." While almost every liberal I know (including my former self, my parents, many of my friends, and every single person I went to college with) could easily be described with the "failed econ socialist" label.

Gotta get our stereotypes correct! 

[Pointedstick]

…And the very few liberals I have known who understood basic economics were actually far closer to libertarians than liberals, but would never be able to admit it, because their understanding of economics made them gravitate toward serious, self-identified libertarians, who seemed more extreme then them, allowing them to maintain the belief they they were still liberals!

[Kshartle]

I'm sure this is all very confusing to you and most Liberals because in fantasy Liberal land, people do things for the good of society because they are good people and want the world to be good and money is just this weird thing that greedy people use to marginalize others. And when people are unemployed it's not because they are too lazy to learn a new trade or unqualified, it's because fat cat CEOs flying on private jets weren't willing to share their wealth.  And we should all be able to get unlimited solar panels and unlimited healthcare if it wasn't for greedy people because resources are unlimited in fantasy land.

K,

This is really something.  I hope it's 90 % hyperbole.

That was TB actually but it's not that far off from the propaganda.

[Kshartle]

In order for their to be discussion and debate here someone has to argue the other side but don't think that I really "believe" what I write.

Productive discussion arises from disagreements about held beliefs. Surely there is enough difference of opinion about things here that no one needs to pretend to believe something in order to spur discussion/debate.

It would be much valuable to actually put your true beliefs up to scrutiny and not just play devil's advocate, in my opinion. And I think this is true for everyone. Let's make this a place of honesty firstly, and civility in spite of intense debate.

How many times in your life have you believed something and then later gone on to change your mind or find out that your beliefs were mistaken? Why should I think that anything that I believe today won't change in the future? It always has before.

So you're going to change your mind about things you don't believe anyway?

This is a strawman. I was saying it is probably better for everyone if we don't invent arguments but instead discuss actual differences in our beliefs rather than imagined ones. That's all.

[Mountaineer]

Productive discussion arises from disagreements about held beliefs. Surely there is enough difference of opinion about things here that no one needs to pretend to believe something in order to spur discussion/debate.

It would be much valuable to actually put your true beliefs up to scrutiny and not just play devil's advocate, in my opinion. And I think this is true for everyone. Let's make this a place of honesty firstly, and civility in spite of intense debate.

How many times in your life have you believed something and then later gone on to change your mind or find out that your beliefs were mistaken? Why should I think that anything that I believe today won't change in the future? It always has before.

So you're going to change your mind about things you don't believe anyway?

This is a strawman. I was saying it is probably better for everyone if we don't invent arguments but instead discuss actual differences in our beliefs rather than imagined ones. That's all.

Kshartle, mark on your calendar please - in bold letters - "Today Mountaineer agreed with me ... again." 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I'm sure this is all very confusing to you and most Liberals because in fantasy Liberal land, people do things for the good of society because they are good people and want the world to be good and money is just this weird thing that greedy people use to marginalize others. And when people are unemployed it's not because they are too lazy to learn a new trade or unqualified, it's because fat cat CEOs flying on private jets weren't willing to share their wealth.  And we should all be able to get unlimited solar panels and unlimited healthcare if it wasn't for greedy people because resources are unlimited in fantasy land.

K,

This is really something.  I hope it's 90 % hyperbole.

That was TB actually but it's not that far off from the propaganda.

TB?

[Pointedstick]

That was TB actually but it's not that far off from the propaganda.

TB?

TripleB.

[moda0306]

Not understanding economics very well and advocating a decent amount of socialist property norms in certain industries (generally a liberal trait) is hardly the degree of stupidity that Kshartle and MangoMan were describing.

So yeah, like most Republicans, and too many libertarians, a lot of liberals don't have a solid understanding of economics.  Of course, I'll usually prefer a Republican to run a business (or libertarian)... but once you get to macro, IMO, they tend to apply their micro-rules and they don't work.

But perhaps it'll take another 10 years of low interest rates and low inflation for them to figure that out.  It's kinda odd, because a LOT of the most skilled entrepreneurial minds are die-hard Republicans/Libertarians (though, in regards to the latter, not the anarchist-type... they like their roads, courts, and patents).

[moda0306]

That was TB actually but it's not that far off from the propaganda.

TB?

TripleB.

Ah... well there we have it.  My bad.

Are you sure you want to argue from such an extreme premise? 

Do you think there are any limitations to your visualization of how supply & demand interact with each other, especially in the face of risk & instability?  It would seem that EVENTUALLY you'd have to start questioning your view of economics in the face of certain evidence that doesn't align with how you describe human nature.