Universal Healthcare FUNDING Question.. would you think taking a few 100 Million from NASA budget to offset?

Question

universal healthcare, would you support that???

FEW HUNDRED BILLLION!!!!
not million

over just the next 4 years (until 2012) Nasa is requesting a total of about 75 Billion....if we took away from that ..would that work...
as in extend that over a 10 year allocation, and instead use about 100 billion on social programs that directly offer aide...Education, social security, etc etc etc

or is space exploration more important that our education, health, social needs?

so Johnny...you saying 100 billion isnt enough???

theres 300,000,000 people in America
100,000,000,000 wouldnt cover us????

NOW, what if we combine that with a small raise in taxes for the working....
and lets not forget the existing costs...
But then again, I gues it would be hard to cover when pills that cost 1CENT To make are being sold for $5 each.

The President’s 2008 Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes $36.6 billion (including collections) for medical care—83 percent more than when President Bush took office

The revised 2006‑07 budget for all HHSA (health and human serives) budgets totals $76 billion in combined state and federal funds

FIREFIGHTEr -- and because of that how many americans cant afford Health Insurance??

Answer 1

When I took economics, I learned something VERY interesting about NASA and govt spending.

1. NASA and its related programs is the ONLY program the govt runs that has a net POSITIVE yield for the economy.

2. American Economic dominance in the 70's, 80's and 90's flowed DIRECTLY from our NASA program and the research that came out of it.

3. With China, India, Japan and severl other countries ramping up thier space programs, their national economies will become more and more techincally oriented. When that happens, if we do NOT contiue to fund NASA appropriately we will see our economy slip like you would not imagine. We still lead the world technically, but that need is narrowing.


Finally, I do NOT believe world peace is possible UNITL the people of the worl start seeing everyone as earthlings versus the thiat and that we concrentrat on now. That will NOT happen until we advance enough to begin colonization of space.

Last and definately NOT least, The ENTIRE NASA budget would not even DENT the bill that universal health care would create. WE are talking about $100 - $500 Billion a year and those are considered very conservative estimates. The only way to control the costs of a universal healthcare program is to limit services. That means that some form of rationing of healthcare MUST occur.

I agree with you that there are problems. However the most cost effective way to attck thsi problem are:

1. Limit Medical liability. Make such that a plaintiff must show that mistakes were made and that those mitakes were significant. (many are, some are not)
2. Revoke the liscence of medical professional who make too many mistakes. (This will help make health care safer for the patients AND lower the costs of medicne by reducing law suits.
3. Limit the amount of maoney that plaintifs attorneys can make in a lawsuit. (At this time many attorneys get 50% or more of the value of a lawsuit. That is the base 30% PLUS fees and expenses)
4. Limit any punative awards. With doctors possibly losing their liscenses punitive costs would not be relavant anymore.
5. Make it possible for the loser of a lawsuit to be FULLY liable for the court costs, including attorneys fees. For Plaintifs attorney's if the Suit is deemed frivolous the plaintiff attorney is liable for some of the defendants costs. (Who but the attorney is better suited to know if a suit has merrit before the case begins?

These measures would help lower costs in the following manner.

1. Doctors pay $65,000 ++ per yer in malrpactice insureance. Taht means a doctor MUST earn $130,000 per year just to end up and a $65,000 take home salary to feed their famility have a home etc. While not terribel, this is not a very good income so we know they make more... With these reforms malpractice insurance costs would go down. Thus doctors could charge less and still have the same or better take home pay.
2. Hospitals would have lower malpractice insurance costs. Thus hospital costs could also go down while the hospitals could maintain either revenue neutral stances or lower costs AND make more profit.
3. Prescription drugs would have lower liabiltiy cots thus they could also lower thier costs.
4. Medical equipment manufacturers would have lower costs for medical liability. Thus their costs would go down. Thsu they could lower their costs...


Please know that MOST of the admin costs for a medical institution are realted to documentation for LEGAL reasons. While this would largely remain intact, if you had ANY idea how much money the medical industry spends on lawsuits and protection thereof you would be shocked!


Now if the costs would NOT drop enough arfter these reforms, then I might (and many others currently opposed WOULD) be willing to consider universal care.

Answer 2

No, because the 100 billion would only be an initial estimate. The true cost would be much more.

Consider that Medicare is currently ten times as expensive as the initial estimates said it would be at this time.

Edit: To answer your additional details, I would not support the money being spent on education, as we have increased spending on education every year for the past 30 years, and every year our schools turn out less prepared students. At some point, people are going to have to realize that the solution to all problems is not to simply throw money at them.

However, I would support setting up of a Social Security fund to help cover the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation, but only on the condition that restrictions are placed on the fund preventing the government from getting their grubby greedy hands into the fund and spending it.

Edit 2: So......we need MORE taxes. And how will we pay when the costs continue to escalate and the quality continues to deteriorate? Will you be happy when we are taxed at 75%? At least then, everything will be free and we will have no Societal problems, right? LOL/

And don't forget that your 1 cent pills would have never been developed were it not for years and billions of dollars of R&D.

Answer 3

Social programs are the issue. Our Government is based on free enterprise. Having our Government run all that you propose would make us a socialistic state and not a Democracy. It already runs the school systems. Look at how much is wasted on that . Why does it cost over $7,000.00 per student per year to go to school in grades K thru 12 ? What are we getting for that money ? Taking away from NASA is not a very good option. Many medical and scientific breakthroughs have been made with NASA. We learn more on every mission we take.

Answer 4

$100 Billion, like another poster said, is enough to cover an initial outlay; that's initial, only. There's a need for a continuous commitment, maintaining the infusion of a few $100,000,000. We need many more zeros and the infrastructure to support it.

Also, we can't even agree on WHAT we want our health care system to look like. We have to agree on an infrastructure and a plan, or we'll be like kids in a candy shop and let the $$ burn a whole in our pocket.

Do you really want to be without a space program? Space satellites tell us much about our safety and defense.

Answer 5

In international places with properly-known healthcare, the tax costs tend to be very intense, over 50%. additionally, they have a tendency to ration the care, through fact the plenty less demanding get right of entry to has a tendency to attact utilization. As for the wealthy paying there honest share, I continuously snigger as quickly as I see this. the wealthy, those contained in the top 25% in accordance to adjusted gross earnings, already pay seventy 5% of the guy earnings tax. the better your earnings, the highter the cost and after a undeniable factor your itemized deductions and private exemptions start up phasing out. the only thank you to fund it fairly is to levy a heavy tax on purely approximately all and sundry and each thing, around the board. That, coupled with intense cuts in an excellent sort of different places (not in basic terms protection tension spending), and rationing of provider might additionally be mandatory.

Answer 6

Figure out how much health care would cost for 300 million people. 300,000,000 x $10,000 = way more than the NASA budget of $12 billion a year.

Answer 7

The cost is already there...when was the last time you heard of someone in the united states having an afliction and not recieving treatment...I work in EMS and have never seen someone go to an Emergency room and be denied treatment.....people arent wheeled in having a heart attack only to have the hospital let him die in the cot because they cant pay....these services are already provided...the hospital passes on the cost to those who do have insurance...the insurance companies pass it on to your employer....your emloyer passes it on to you.

Answer 8

NO
I do not want universal health care.
I do not want to pay for universal health care.
I do not want to even pay for NASA.
Why do you give up your pay check for unerversal health care, and keep your hands out of other peoples pockets?

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

Johnny2Times is brilliant. Admit defeat WritersBlock.