Author Topic: Barney Frank wants to gut NASA for government-run health care  (Read 8522 times)

Offline CrossoverManiac

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0


About 2:36 into the video, we can hear Barney Frank talking out of his rear end about cutting NASA's budget yet again for universal health care.  For someone who runs a business (and when I mean business, I meant a prostitution ring out of his apartment), 'Einstein' here can't seem to do math.  Even if NASA was abolished and all of the money giving to social welfare, it wouldn't even pay the paperwork to run the bureaucracy let alone the whole program.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 04:49 am by CrossoverManiac »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
"Barney Frank wants to gut NASA" ... honestly, I think it'd work out much better the other way around!  (it wouldn't even have to be NASA that did it to him)  ;)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Barney Frank seems to think NASA's budget is a lot bigger than it actually is.

Even if every penny of NASA's FY2010 $18.4 billion got re-directed to health-care it would be the proverbial "drop in the bucket", because the current health-care budget totals a whopping $1,684.6 billion this coming year; that's 9,155% of NASA's entire annual budget.


Yet if we did do that, we would be depriving future generations of new technologies, new discoveries, new science and inspiration for improving the nation's science capabilities -- which I personally believe are particularly crucial to keeping the US competitive in this increasingly competitive world.

But worse than that, you would also be deleting THE single greatest "advert" for America's high tech industries.   NASA is one of the US most globally-recognized "brands", and it is directly responsible for helping to bring BILLIONS in high-tech international trade to these shores.   Lose that at your economic peril, Barney.

Frank is a Luddite and a Dullard.   If we follow his mindset to its logical conclusion, we will all end up moving back into caves and forgetting about such new-fangled things as fire and the wheel.   Mr. Frank's utopia is not one which I will ever choose to live in.   I second the notion that it isn't NASA which needs to be gutted here.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 05:30 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
I wondered how strong a language I could use here without getting into trouble. I'll settle for calling Mr Frank a fool, which he is. :(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Note how all this talk is prefaced and qualified by Frank; they are talking about a specific proposal... not "all American healthcare," he is also not claiming that it can be funded solely with NASA money:
Quote
“First of all, it is a trillion dollars over 10 years, so we’re talking about 100 billion dollars a year. In my view part of it should come from the military budget.”
(also mentions agriculture subsidies, tax increases, etc.)

Here's where Rep. Frank mentions NASA specifically:
Quote
“They’re still talking about sending human beings to mars for hundreds of billions of dollars -literally hundreds of billions. I’m for space exploration with instrumentation”

I hope that any manned mars missions include "instrumentation"  ;)

To me, that doesn't sound like he wants to "gut NASA," although it does show a preference for robotic exploration. Regardless, the spontaneous nonsense that gets spouted (by all involved) on shows like O'Riley's is hard to take seriously.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare. Other developed countries like NZ spend less than half the amount that the US does but have better coverage.

Essentially it's the same idea as funding NASA less -- just providing extra funding encourages more waste/inefficiency. Both NASA and the US healthcare system need to do some systematic prioritisation and optimisation.

One of the big issues with healthcare is that everyone comes out with scare stories and emotive arguments and it's very hard to have a rational discussion. NASA on the other hand... It's very easy to rationalise into non-existence unfortunately :(
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 10:11 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
'100s of Billions of Dollars to go to mars'
I stop listening after that, it's evident Barney frank has absolutely NO Idea what he's talking about on that subject. NASA Doesn't get that much money in it's budget per FY.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 11:10 am by Orbiter »
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare. Other developed countries like NZ spend less than half the amount that the US does but have better coverage.


I am not sure a healthcare discussion is warranted on here (after all shouldn't we talk about spaceflight?), but what you are saying is exactly right. The US could save trillions over the next 10 years if a continental European style UHC system were implemented. 17-18% of GDP for healthcare at the moment is unacceptable compared to an OECD average of 9%. Well it might be acceptable if the actual quality of the US healthcare system was ranked Nr.1 in the world, but that's not the case. The whole discussion is a bit like talking about Ares I/Ares V on the one hand and DIRECT etc. on the other hand. The alternatives seem to be technical superior to the baseline while being a lot cheaper and quicker to implement.

In any event, Frank shouldn't mention NASA or spaceflight in a discussion on healthcare reform. NASA is NOT the problem when it comes to the current budget deficit and problems with healthcare spending. It makes him look like a fool doing so.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
100% of NASA's budget should keep health care running for about 43 seconds.

I completely gave up on Barney when he didn't take any blame for the financial melt down last fall. 

The best solution to health care is get rid of lawsuits where lawyers get a % of the settlement.  Fixed fee awards to attorney's.  Secondly adjust insurance for life style.  If you aren't taking care of yourself through diet and exercise you pay more. 

But back to space flight.  It's a sorry thing when politicians in any country look to the <1% programs to fund the mega programs.  I'm from Canada we saw this in the 90's all the time.  If a politician had any steel in their spin they would make tough choices instead of lazy decisions that don't solve problems.

Like the Purple dinosaur before him that shared his name, Barney needs to go.

Edit: However it was on Fox 'News' so it doesn't really count as real information.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 11:37 am by wannamoonbase »
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Anybody who watches Bill O'Reilly and Barney Frank at the same time is bucking for Section 8.

And the fact is, Barney Frank is unlikely to "go" any time soon. He does what the voters of his congressional district hired him to do, and that's why they keep re-electing him. It's not exactly a liberal district, by any standard, much less those of Massachussetts, and he's very good a getting Federal money for his district. One thing about New Englanders, conservative and liberal alike: if you do the job you're paid to do, nothing else matters. So his voters done care about how he runs his mouth, and more than they care about his sex life.

When I lived in NH, which is fairly conservative, we had a city councilwoman who was notorious for both graft, and for the salacious way she conducted her personal life. Many a time, I heard people comment, "Who cares what she steals or who she ****s, as long as she does the job." Then, one day, I had a problem in my neighborhood (an illegal junkyard). I called her office, and to my amazement, she showed up at my door an hour later. I pointed out the problem, and she said, "Wait here." Thirty minutes later, she had the cops and the city manager on the street, and about an hour after that trucks showed up to haul away the junkyard. The councilwoman came over at the end, and said, "If the owner gives you any trouble. Give me another call."

As for Bill O'Reilly, you're better off watching the Bozo Show.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare. Other developed countries like NZ spend less than half the amount that the US does but have better coverage.

Essentially it's the same idea as funding NASA less -- just providing extra funding encourages more waste/inefficiency. Both NASA and the US healthcare system need to do some systematic prioritisation and optimisation.

One of the big issues with healthcare is that everyone comes out with scare stories and emotive arguments and it's very hard to have a rational discussion. NASA on the other hand... It's very easy to rationalise into non-existence unfortunately :(

Actually, you're right. But we here in N.Z. complain about the slipping of our health system into 'third world status'. It is a political football -- along with Law & Order -- every Election time. Does any of this sound familiar to folks in England, Australia, or most other developed countries around the world? :(

If anyone is interested: http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/articles/Health%20Education.pdf
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
You don't have to watch Fox News though to realize he has no idea what he's talking about. The fact that he said it right out of his mouth is the only part I listened too. Skipped right through the other stuff.
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Online Chris Bergin

A bit confused. This is a spoof video, right? We've heard of Bill O'Reilly, but the guy playing the congressman is clearly a comedian....with the wierd picking of his fingers at the start of the video and the very wacky voice?

A bit wary as there's serious comments on this thread, as opposed to "wow, that was funny."
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
A bit confused. This is a spoof video, right? We've heard of Bill O'Reilly, but the guy playing the congressman is clearly a comedian....with the wierd picking of his fingers at the start of the video and the very wacky voice?

A bit wary as there's serious comments on this thread, as opposed to "wow, that was funny."

Unfortunately he is a real Congressman..... gets made fun of a lot on the Daily Show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 12:19 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Online Chris Bergin

Wow! And I thought the UK had exclusivity on wacky characters in government. Sorry if I offended any of his fans in my other post in that case, but anyone who wants to cut defence spending for a national health system is a bit off their trolley.

Doesn't work anyway, you have to increase taxes by a hefty margin to fund it, like how it works in the UK. Cutting spending on defence and NASA wouldn't scratch the surface.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 12:26 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Lawntonlookirs

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I kind of agree with Chris on this being a spoof video.  Nothing at all is mentioned on Barney Frank web site about this.


http://www.house.gov/frank/welcome.html


Everyman is my superior in that I may learn from him.  Albert Einstein

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I kind of agree with Chris on this being a spoof video.  Nothing at all is mentioned on Barney Frank web site about this.


http://www.house.gov/frank/welcome.html

No, it's not a spoof video. It's Frank's actual position for funding the healthcare reform package.

If it costs 1 trillion over 10 years, he wants to (according to the video) save that trillion by
 - cutting the F-22 program (I guess that has already been done, only 187 fighters will be ordered)
 - withdraw from military basis in Europe
 - reduce military funding altogether by getting allies more involved in the Afghanistan war and ending the Iraq engagement
 - end agricultural subsidies for large farming companies
 - increase taxes for people making 250k a year

and apparently he also wants to cut NASA's Constellation program which he says will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And to be fair, within the time frame he is talking about (from now to a manned Mars mission) it will cost that much.

it's still wrong to cut NASA funding. US' engineering capabilities are dependent on NASA's HSF programs. Eliminating them will have a very detrimental effect on the aerospace industry (which after all is an important US industry).
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 12:43 pm by mr.columbus »

Offline charlieb

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
  • King of Prussia, PA, USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 10
Nothing more comedic than watching Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb together on the Big Tube.  This was one time they didn't get into a screaming match - an amazing first!

Barnus Fwank is a dangerous individual with too much power and say in regards to this country.  Frankly - we are doomed as a free nation with such a man rambling away on TV while picking his finely manacured fingernails.  He could care less about the common citizen here who's interested in what we are interested in - that's for starters.  UGH - get me a bucket........
Former Shuttle Mission Ops Eng  (In them days DF24 - INCO GROUP/COMMS, Now DS231-AVIONICS BRANCH).

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Yeah, Barney Frank is a joke, thanks for cluing me in to the O'Reily interview, I'll grab some pop corn. It should be good.

He's about as useful as Deval... MA politics suck, if your a dem you win, regardless of how hard you run. At least I'm in the first 1st congressional district, so am not completely shamed by the igit. Please Oboma take Deval out of MA and give him a job as a Czar of something, and let Barney Frank take ride with kennedy aloong a canal. 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Yeah, Barney Frank is a joke, thanks for cluing me in to the O'Reily interview, I'll grab some pop corn. It should be good.

He's about as useful as Deval... MA politics suck, if your a dem you win, regardless of how hard you run. At least I'm in the first 1st congressional district, so am not completely shamed by the igit. Please Oboma take Deval out of MA and give him a job as a Czar of something, and let Barney Frank take ride with kennedy aloong a canal. 

The problem here is not the obvious fact that he is a baffoon... it is the uncertainty of how many people actually listen to and believe him... Thats the scary part to me.
One Percent for Space!!!

Offline Captain Scarlet

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Cambridgeshire, England
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Agree with Chris. Our NHS would never work from cuts in other public spending. I don't know how much everyone pays for the NHS in tax, but it'd work out that you'd ALL have to pay about $500 a year extra, EVERYONE who works pays for it regardless.

And then it's a crap system. Sure, it's free to all (every man woman and child, and even if you're a tourist they won't charge you), but there's serious problems with some hospitals. You wouldn't get the fancy ones we saw with Jackson last night.

You end up with two classes, one NHS, and one private, where people willing to pay five thousand pounds can jump the NHS waiting list and get it done private.

So Americans, if you want a National Health System, expect to pay for it big time in tax and watch the standards drop.

Offline mr.columbus

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

You end up with two classes, one NHS, and one private, where people willing to pay five thousand pounds can jump the NHS waiting list and get it done private.

So Americans, if you want a National Health System, expect to pay for it big time in tax and watch the standards drop.

I am confused. The US system is a two class system already, only that the second class doesn't get healthcare at all.

When it comes to taxes and paying for the system, the US already spends more taxes per capita for healthcare than the UK. And that's just for Medicare/Medicaid and subsidizing private insurance plans. Overall, the UK systems costs only about half of the US system on a per GDP basis.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
'100s of Billions of Dollars to go to mars'
I stop listening after that, it's evident Barney frank has absolutely NO Idea what he's talking about on that subject. NASA Doesn't get that much money in it's budget per FY.

10 Billion a year for 20 years is $200B.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
A bit confused. This is a spoof video, right? We've heard of Bill O'Reilly, but the guy playing the congressman is clearly a comedian....with the wierd picking of his fingers at the start of the video and the very wacky voice?

A bit wary as there's serious comments on this thread, as opposed to "wow, that was funny."

No worse than watching your House of Commons  :D

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Wow! And I thought the UK had exclusivity on wacky characters in government. Sorry if I offended any of his fans in my other post in that case, but anyone who wants to cut defence spending for a national health system is a bit off their trolley.

Doesn't work anyway, you have to increase taxes by a hefty margin to fund it, like how it works in the UK. Cutting spending on defence and NASA wouldn't scratch the surface.

You are right on this.  With Iran, North Korea, and maybe even some risk of China and Russia we do need the F-22 and such.  And the number of F-22s to be bought HAS been cut way back from the level needed to fight the Russians in WWIII.  But if we did need to go into Iran or North Korea, we would need the F-22 to quickly gain air superiority.  I believe even though our relations with China and Russia are OK, we need to be able to defeat ANY other military in the world.  Look what happened in Georgia (not Georgia, USA) a few months ago.  There was a shooting war and we supported the side shooting at the Russians.  And we certainly need the F-22 to defeat Russia and China.  The current buy is probably not big enough to do this job well.  Same thing goes for the Navy.

Chris, please forgive me for using your site to talk military stuff, but my guess is you will not delete this post.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Always amazing to see people forget what democracy means. Bill Gates has exactly the same number of votes coming to him as your average bum on the street. And sure, Bill Gates can offer large campaign contributions, but there are many, many more bums than there are billionaires.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
I am confused. The US system is a two class system already, only that the second class doesn't get healthcare at all.

When it comes to taxes and paying for the system, the US already spends more taxes per capita for healthcare than the UK. And that's just for Medicare/Medicaid and subsidizing private insurance plans. Overall, the UK systems costs only about half of the US system on a per GDP basis.

And produces an infinitesimal amount of innovation and medical discoveries compared to US.  That's what costly health care pays for folks.  It also pays for paper pushers mandated by the government and insurance companies.  Those are health insurance companies whose paper is necessitated by malpractice insurance companies whose existence is necessitated by lawyers.  This mess all started with liability lawsuits 25-30 years ago.  Guess where those started?  California.

Get the government out, and limit liability.  That would cut costs 20% each.  Health IT to prevent redundant tests would probably save another 10%.

Here's my favorite Barney Frank.  This was 2005.  Watch this and then tell me who was responsible for the financial meltdown.

« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 03:37 pm by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare.

It's easy really; competition. The US Health Care system is run by greedy board room directors of insurance companies whose only purpose for living is to get the most money possible for the least amount of medical coverage. The profit then goes into shareholder's dividends and bonuses. So, the only way to lower the cost is to bring in a player who provides equal or better care for less money to the public, forcing the insurance companies to re-evaluate their cost structures. They won't like it one bit and that will fill me with total glee. And the only player I know who can do that is the US government. Take a look at the efficiency achieved in the Medicaid program. The "commercial" concerns can't touch it because it would mean cutting bonuses and dividends. Well good. Let the government bring in some REAL competition for them, at a much lower cost, and see how quickly all the greed that just oozes from the seams of the insurance companies dries up a little. They will lower their costs because they HAVE to but they won't lower the quality of their services because the competition would then be not only cheaper, but better. And I agree completely with lawyers being paid standard fees, not a percent of law suits. End result: quality health care for less money.

Problem solved. Good old fashoned American capitalism: competition.
Now Barney can go back to the children’s’ shows on Saturday morning TV where he belongs.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 04:21 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Now Barney can go back to the children’s’ shows on Saturday morning TV where he belongs.

What do you have against my children?
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 04:21 pm by Lee Jay »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare.

It's easy really; competition. The US Health Care system is run by greedy board room directors of insurance companies whose only purpose for living is to get the most money possible for the least amount of expenditures. The profit then goes into shareholder's dividends and bonus'. So, the only way to lower the cost is to bring in a player who provides equal or better care for less money to the public, forcing the insurance companies to re-evaluate their cost structures. They won't like it one bit and that will fill me with total glee. And the only player I know who can do that is the US government. Take a look at the efficiency achieved in the Medicaid program. The "commercial" concerns can't touch it because it would mean cutting bonus's and dividends. Well good. Let the government bring in some REAL competition for them, at a much lower cost, and see how quickly all the greed that just oozes from the seams of the insurance companies dries up a little. They will lower their costs because they HAVE to but they won't lower the quality of their services because the competition would then be not only cheaper, but better. And I agree completely with lawers being paid standard fees, not a percent of law suits. End result: quality health care for less money.

Problem solved. Good old American capitalism: competition.
Now Barney can go back to the children’s’ shows on Saturday morning TV where he belongs.

Agreed the present system of insurance companies is amazingly inefficient when it comes to using money.
Plus the USA is over lawyered about 40% of the lawyers in the US probably should be disbarred on moral grounds alone.
Most people probably would put that percentage much higher.

Though there is no reason to raid NASA it's not enough money anyway plus some of it's research in telemedicine can help reduce the cost of health care.

One can get the needed money by canceling very unpopular programs such as real ID and getting rid of the TSA which has performed worse then the private security firms it replaced.
« Last Edit: 06/26/2009 04:26 pm by Patchouli »

Online Chris Bergin

Ok, this has run it's course.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0