“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.”
“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”
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.
It seems (from the outside) that the US really needs to work out how to spend LESS on healthcare.
Now Barney can go back to the children’s’ shows on Saturday morning TV where he belongs.
Quote from: madscientist197 on 06/26/2009 10:08 amIt 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.