As a follow-up on my last post, I've done a little research and some rough calculations here to put things into a clearer perspective. Someone, please correct me if my math is in error.
George Bush's US federal budget request for FY2008 was US$2.9 trillion, US$627 billion of which were to be allocated to defence spending and the War on Terror*. Since 2001, the government has borrowed US$1.3 trillion to pay for "tax breaks, new Medicare drug benefits and the war in Iraq."** I will assume that this borrowing has been constant to suggest that the federal government will borrow US$163 billion in FY2008. Let's assume only US$80 billion of this is actually borrowed for the Iraq War. The actual total FY2008 federal spending then becomes US$3.06 trillion and the actual spending for defence and the War on Terror becomes US$707 billion. Therefore, if my estimates are reasonable, roughly 25% of the US federal government's spending of borrowed and budgeted funds right now is going towards defence and the War on Terror.
I personally believe there is still hope to turn this around. Adding the US$163 billion estimate of borrowed money to the US$240 billion budgeted net deficit for the year, the United States federal government has a total spending/earning FY2008 deficit of roughly US$403 billion. Therefore, if the spending for defence and the War on Terror were greatly reduced, the government could potentially begin to operate at a surplus.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 (ultimately gathered from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html)
**http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheFinancialTrapFacingTheUSChina.aspx
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Socialised Medicine in the United States
With health care being a big issue in the current American political scene, I thought I would throw out a few ideas here and see if I could start a discussion. I suspect most Americans agree that the US health care system is in dire need of reform. I would also venture to say that the majority of American antagonism against socialised medicine is probably a result of fears that our economy could not foot the bill. After all, if money were not an issue, wouldn't most Americans agree that having the option of free health care for everyone, even if it were known to be of lesser quality than privately run health care, would be better than nothing for those who cannot afford health care or insurance coverage on their own? I am not talking about a system like Canada's where privately funded clinics are illegal, but rather a system similar to the American primary and secondary education system where free public education is available to everyone everywhere but privately funded education is an option for those who wish to (and can afford to) pay for it; a system like England's health care system where competition-driven private medicine sets the standard for quality and provides for those who can afford it, but for those who cannot or do not wish to pay for it the state-run, tax-funded NHS provides free health care.
As for myself, I tend to agree with the libertarian viewpoint that a smaller government is better and that privately run enterprises are more efficient and approach higher quality of service than similar socialised enterprises. It is a proven fact that economic competition provides the stimulus to move forward and increase quality of goods and services. As a result, for the rich, health care in the United States is probably the best in the world. However, for the poor, most agree that the system fails. In a Laissez-faire economy, where is the incentive for private health care clinics to provide anything to those who cannot pay?
But where is the money for universal health care in the United States? Hillary Clinton's plan would cost an estimated US$110 billion*. According to the American Medical Student Association, universal health care would cost at least US$34 billion to US$69 billion.** I am not purporting to have a solution for the problem but I can state some figures to put things into perspective.
It is my personal belief that government should exist for one singular purpose: to protect rights. I believe this grand purpose should be broken down into three specific purposes (in decreasing order of importance): to protect the rights of its citizens, to protect the rights of humanity, and to protect the rights of animals. If it were my choice, I would re-evaluate every programme funded by the US government, and either abolish or downsize any programme which did not blatantly fulfill this grand purpose, and I would start with the Iraq War. According to The Washington Post (quoting the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service), the Iraq War was costing the US government US$10 billion per month (US$120 billion budget) in 2007, following the troop surge***. As of February 2008, the US is spending an estimated US$16 billion per month (US$192 billion budget) for the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan**** which is now largely being borrowed with interest from other nations, such as China. In a CBS News/New York Times Poll of American adults from 25 April to 29 April 2008, 62% would prefer the next president to try to end the Iraq War in two years no matter what*****. I won't go into an in-depth discussion about the Iraq War here as it deserves its own post. However, it is certainly something to think about every time we say our country doesn't have the money to provide free health care for our people. I do not know about others but personally, I would much rather know that the money I am giving to the government is helping support programmes like a free health care system for those who cannot afford it, than a foreign war which is, for the most part, not approved of by the international community, was never actually approved of by Congress, has cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives overseas, is increasing our national debt each day, and gives the terrorists more reason to hate America.
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
**http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900957.html
****http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
*****http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
As for myself, I tend to agree with the libertarian viewpoint that a smaller government is better and that privately run enterprises are more efficient and approach higher quality of service than similar socialised enterprises. It is a proven fact that economic competition provides the stimulus to move forward and increase quality of goods and services. As a result, for the rich, health care in the United States is probably the best in the world. However, for the poor, most agree that the system fails. In a Laissez-faire economy, where is the incentive for private health care clinics to provide anything to those who cannot pay?
But where is the money for universal health care in the United States? Hillary Clinton's plan would cost an estimated US$110 billion*. According to the American Medical Student Association, universal health care would cost at least US$34 billion to US$69 billion.** I am not purporting to have a solution for the problem but I can state some figures to put things into perspective.
It is my personal belief that government should exist for one singular purpose: to protect rights. I believe this grand purpose should be broken down into three specific purposes (in decreasing order of importance): to protect the rights of its citizens, to protect the rights of humanity, and to protect the rights of animals. If it were my choice, I would re-evaluate every programme funded by the US government, and either abolish or downsize any programme which did not blatantly fulfill this grand purpose, and I would start with the Iraq War. According to The Washington Post (quoting the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service), the Iraq War was costing the US government US$10 billion per month (US$120 billion budget) in 2007, following the troop surge***. As of February 2008, the US is spending an estimated US$16 billion per month (US$192 billion budget) for the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan**** which is now largely being borrowed with interest from other nations, such as China. In a CBS News/New York Times Poll of American adults from 25 April to 29 April 2008, 62% would prefer the next president to try to end the Iraq War in two years no matter what*****. I won't go into an in-depth discussion about the Iraq War here as it deserves its own post. However, it is certainly something to think about every time we say our country doesn't have the money to provide free health care for our people. I do not know about others but personally, I would much rather know that the money I am giving to the government is helping support programmes like a free health care system for those who cannot afford it, than a foreign war which is, for the most part, not approved of by the international community, was never actually approved of by Congress, has cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives overseas, is increasing our national debt each day, and gives the terrorists more reason to hate America.
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
**http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900957.html
****http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
*****http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
