In these economic stressful times, many of us want the President and congress to cut the budget. Obviously I can think of many places to make cuts that I've discussed before. The reality is that there are additions being made that I don't agree with related to welfare, health care, and hostile take overs infringing on capitalism.
One thing we haven't discussed is NASA. On this weekend of the release of Star Trek, a movie that epitomizes space exploration beyond our wildest imaginations. I have heard discussions on NASA and arguments for or against spending on it. Some people think we are wasting money exploring space, while others want the U.S. to remain the leaders in the world in space exploration.
Let me giving you some spending history budgeted for NASA going back to 1996.
2010 Proposed $18.7 Billion
2009 Estimate: $17.8 Billion
2008 Estimate: $17.2 Billion
2007 Actual: $15.8 Billion
2006 Actual: $15.1 Billion
2005 Actual: $15.6 Billion
2004 Actual: $15.1 Billion
2003 Actual: $14.5 Billion
2002 Actual: $14.9 Billion
2001 Actual: $14.2 Billion
2000 Actual: $6.8 Billion
1999 Actual: $9.4 Billion
1998 Actual: $9.8 Billion
1997 Actual: $9.3 Billion
1996 Actual: $8.0 Billion
The funds proposed for 2010 you can see is not a huge increase relatively speaking. If you break it down per family of 4, it comes to 1.2 cents more. However the total $18.7 billion comes to $62.33 per person or $250 per family of 4. Obviously it's redistributed based on the amount of taxes each person or family pays. The more money you make the more you pay towards this amount. And the converse is true as well.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration.pdf
Funding Highlights:
• Provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Combined with
the $1 billion provided to the agency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
this represents a total increase of more than $2.4 billion over the 2008 level.
• Funds a program of space-based research that supports the Administration’s commitment to
deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system.
• Funds a robust program of space exploration involving humans and robots. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration will return humans to the Moon while also supporting a
vigorous program of robotic exploration of the solar system and universe.
• Funds the safe flight of the Space Shuttle through the vehicle’s retirement at the end of 2010.
An additional flight will be conducted if it can be completed safely before the end of 2010.
• Funds the development of new space flight systems for carrying American crews and supplies
to space.
• Funds continued use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal,
commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs.
• Funds aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and emissions
reduction, and fuel efficiency.
So what do you think about spending on NASA? Is it something worthwhile or is it a waste of taxpayer dollars? I'd like to know what you think.
From my perspective, there are other places in the budget I would cut that would dwarf the spending in NASA. But I would also be hesitant to double or triple their budget anytime soon. I think the research they do feeds the imagination inside all of us. I would love the opportunity to travel to space in my lifetime. But perhaps that is a pipe dream we need to let go of.
Showing posts with label 2010 Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 Budget. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Back to the 2010 Budget - Department of Health and Human Services
Here's the link to the part of the budget specific to Health and Human Services. It's only 4 pages so I think it's worth a read.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services1.pdf
But if you can't bring yourself to read 4 pages, here are the highlights provided on page 1.
Funding Highlights:
• Accelerates the adoption of health information technology and utilization of electronic health
records.
• Expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments to give patients and
physicians better information on what works best.
• Invests over $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health as part of the
Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.
• Strengthens the Indian health system with sustained investments in health care services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives to address persistent health disparities and foster healthy
Indian communities.
• Invests $330 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists practicing in areas
of the country experiencing shortages of health professionals.
• Supports families by providing additional funding for affordable, high-quality child care,
expanding Early Head Start and Head Start, and creating the Nurse Home Visitation program
to support first-time mothers.
• Strengthens the Medicare program by encouraging high quality and efficient care, and improving
program integrity.
• Invests over $1 billion for Food and Drug Administration food safety efforts to increase and
improve inspections, domestic surveillance, laboratory capacity and domestic response to
prevent and control food borne illness.
First of all, I don't support government funded research of diseases. People don't need to be compelled to give to research, they will do it as they see a need. I highly encourage private efforts to raise funds for research. Look at how successful St. Jude's is at raising money for research and treatment of kids with cancer. But I shouldn't jump on this one since it's unpopular to oppose government funding of diseases.
Here's what the highlights don't tell you but the website does. The budget establishes a reserve fund of $630 Billion over the next 10 years to "finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage." If you think $630 Billion over 10 years is enough to provide universal health care, you're crazy. It will cost more than that a year most likely. And that creates health care rationing. Ask Canada or England or any other country with it. It might not be too bad for routine care, but what are you going to do if you get a life threatening disease or a pain causing condition or need a knee or hip replacement. Do you want the government telling you when you can get it taken care of? How would you like to have to live with pain unnecessarily for years before it gets treated? The older you are the further down on the list you go because you're expendable. How's that for a violation of your civil rights?
Pharmacy's have already started a solution to the problem with their generic drug programs thanks to the leading of the oh so evil Walmart. And I thought Walmart only hurt people. Now for doctors and hospitals to follow suit. Actually in essence they do. If you go to a hospital most if not all of them will offer you a self pay discount to pay up front if you don't have insurance, which is equal to or greater than the discount provided by membership to an insurance network. (The discounts very by negotiated rates with various insurance providers). If you don't choose this option and you go through the emergency room, they will set up a payment plan. Many doctors will also negotiate with you if you ask them.
Do you want to know what's driving up the cost of health care other than uncompensated care? I'm going to tell you whether you want to or not. Insurance companies have become the middle man between patients and providers. They are not non profit companies. They are for profit. So now two entities are trying to make a profit from providing you a service. Since you are the only one paying money, who do you think is paying for the profit to the insurance company and the doctor? You are, or your company is. The insurance company has to pay people to process and pay your claims and the doctors and facilities have to pay people to file claims to insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid offered by the supposed cost saving government. What if patients and providers got together to eliminate the middle man for routine care? You wouldn't have to pay insurance premiums which you could now save to pay cash for your health care. Providers would now be competing for your business on price and quality of care. Perhaps they could create their own premium based care where you pay them $X/month and they agree to see you and treat you as needed. They could tailor levels of care/cost to your age, family history, or desires.
Step two is encourage health savings though health savings accounts like are available now. I hate to use the term "mandate," but this would be an acceptable alternative in my mind. Only rather than losing any unspent money, it should be able to roll over to the next year in an effort to save for additional unexpected medical emergencies that can arise in our lifetime that may fall outside of routine care. If a balance gets to a point where it exceeds a certain cushion amount, a person can take that money out tax free for educational use, or be rolled over to a 401k or traditional IRA. (This is working under the assumption that the Fair Tax isn't implemented)
This may not be a perfect plan but it's a start and it's a better and more cost effective alternative to government run health care.
Here's a reminder/plea for you to write your congressmen and let them know what you think about the budget. I believe they are supposed to vote on it later this week. Email them, Call them!!! Do it now!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services1.pdf
But if you can't bring yourself to read 4 pages, here are the highlights provided on page 1.
Funding Highlights:
• Accelerates the adoption of health information technology and utilization of electronic health
records.
• Expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments to give patients and
physicians better information on what works best.
• Invests over $6 billion for cancer research at the National Institutes of Health as part of the
Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.
• Strengthens the Indian health system with sustained investments in health care services for
American Indians and Alaska Natives to address persistent health disparities and foster healthy
Indian communities.
• Invests $330 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists practicing in areas
of the country experiencing shortages of health professionals.
• Supports families by providing additional funding for affordable, high-quality child care,
expanding Early Head Start and Head Start, and creating the Nurse Home Visitation program
to support first-time mothers.
• Strengthens the Medicare program by encouraging high quality and efficient care, and improving
program integrity.
• Invests over $1 billion for Food and Drug Administration food safety efforts to increase and
improve inspections, domestic surveillance, laboratory capacity and domestic response to
prevent and control food borne illness.
First of all, I don't support government funded research of diseases. People don't need to be compelled to give to research, they will do it as they see a need. I highly encourage private efforts to raise funds for research. Look at how successful St. Jude's is at raising money for research and treatment of kids with cancer. But I shouldn't jump on this one since it's unpopular to oppose government funding of diseases.
Here's what the highlights don't tell you but the website does. The budget establishes a reserve fund of $630 Billion over the next 10 years to "finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage." If you think $630 Billion over 10 years is enough to provide universal health care, you're crazy. It will cost more than that a year most likely. And that creates health care rationing. Ask Canada or England or any other country with it. It might not be too bad for routine care, but what are you going to do if you get a life threatening disease or a pain causing condition or need a knee or hip replacement. Do you want the government telling you when you can get it taken care of? How would you like to have to live with pain unnecessarily for years before it gets treated? The older you are the further down on the list you go because you're expendable. How's that for a violation of your civil rights?
Pharmacy's have already started a solution to the problem with their generic drug programs thanks to the leading of the oh so evil Walmart. And I thought Walmart only hurt people. Now for doctors and hospitals to follow suit. Actually in essence they do. If you go to a hospital most if not all of them will offer you a self pay discount to pay up front if you don't have insurance, which is equal to or greater than the discount provided by membership to an insurance network. (The discounts very by negotiated rates with various insurance providers). If you don't choose this option and you go through the emergency room, they will set up a payment plan. Many doctors will also negotiate with you if you ask them.
Do you want to know what's driving up the cost of health care other than uncompensated care? I'm going to tell you whether you want to or not. Insurance companies have become the middle man between patients and providers. They are not non profit companies. They are for profit. So now two entities are trying to make a profit from providing you a service. Since you are the only one paying money, who do you think is paying for the profit to the insurance company and the doctor? You are, or your company is. The insurance company has to pay people to process and pay your claims and the doctors and facilities have to pay people to file claims to insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid offered by the supposed cost saving government. What if patients and providers got together to eliminate the middle man for routine care? You wouldn't have to pay insurance premiums which you could now save to pay cash for your health care. Providers would now be competing for your business on price and quality of care. Perhaps they could create their own premium based care where you pay them $X/month and they agree to see you and treat you as needed. They could tailor levels of care/cost to your age, family history, or desires.
Step two is encourage health savings though health savings accounts like are available now. I hate to use the term "mandate," but this would be an acceptable alternative in my mind. Only rather than losing any unspent money, it should be able to roll over to the next year in an effort to save for additional unexpected medical emergencies that can arise in our lifetime that may fall outside of routine care. If a balance gets to a point where it exceeds a certain cushion amount, a person can take that money out tax free for educational use, or be rolled over to a 401k or traditional IRA. (This is working under the assumption that the Fair Tax isn't implemented)
This may not be a perfect plan but it's a start and it's a better and more cost effective alternative to government run health care.
Here's a reminder/plea for you to write your congressmen and let them know what you think about the budget. I believe they are supposed to vote on it later this week. Email them, Call them!!! Do it now!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
