Federal Upheaval Of National Priorities And Spending
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Federal Upheaval Of National Priorities And Spending as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,841
- Pages: 9
Federal Upheaval of National Priorities and Spending A Proposal for the Future of Science and Humanity by Scott Ruzal
H. L. Mencken, professional journalist of Scopes Trial fame, once sensibly wrote, “The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is overestimated.” Indeed, this sentiment has never been truer than in its application to the sciences. Money cannot replace great ideas nor can it replace merely good ones. It takes a brilliant mind to effectively manipulate the sciences, and humanity does not presently possess the scientific ability to create such brilliance through the sheer will of money alone. However, even with this impediment, there are certain things that money can do for the sciences that positively affect research and development. Well-funded laboratories and scientific institutions not only provide greater motivation for scientists, but also provide a cushion for experimental programs to fail without resulting in financial ruination for the company. But the question arises, with our national debt currently at a staggering $9 trillion, how can the federal government afford to increase the scientific budget? I have found that even the briefest of analyses will provide all the evidence needed to prove that hundreds of billions of dollars in federal expenses are currently being wasted to support a detrimental health care system and an unnecessary war in Iraq. To begin tackling this problem, I believe it goes without saying that the United States health care system is not the best in the world. In fact, the latest World Health Organization (WHO) report ranks U.S. health care 37th out of 190 globally recognized health care programs (World Health Organization). This evaluation is made considerably more embarrassing when compared to
the total, both federal and individual out-of-pocket, per person spending on health care, which is $6,103—the highest amount spent by any country in the world (World Health Organization). And, as if things could not appear any worse, only forty percent of Americans are covered by public health care, while 47 million Americans remain completely uninsured by any health coverage at all–these figures are also the worst out of any industrialized nation (National Coalition on Health Care). These circumstances lead to the determination that the federal government is currently supporting a failed health care system, wasting finances that would be much better spent elsewhere. And I also believe it goes without saying that the key to extracting these wasted dollars lies in the complete upheaval of the current health care system. A great question that must be entertained: what do France, Switzerland, and Canada all have in common? Besides being industrialized nations with health care quality ranked higher than the U.S., all of their health care systems are financed by lower percentages of their gross domestic product’s (GDP). Currently, annual health care appropriations for the U.S. are approximately $2.3 trillion, which is 16.6% of a $13.84 trillion GDP. This percentage of the GDP, which has risen by three points since the year 2000, is expected to reach 20% by the year 2016 (National Coalition on Health Care). Canada, whose health care ranks only seven places higher than the U.S. on the WHO report, will spend $160.1 billion on health care in 2008, or 13.6% of its $1.18 trillion GDP (The Canadian Press). France,
currently the world leader in health care quality and satisfaction, will spend approximately $227 billion, or 11% of its $2.06 trillion GDP (Tanner; The World Factbook). Switzerland, whose health care ranks 20th, is somewhere in between Canada and France. If one analyzes the relationship between these numbers and the different health care systems of the U.S. and these three foreign nations, the most striking detail resides in each country’s level of financial efficiency determined by the percentage of their GDP spent on health care. Then, there is the very obvious juxtaposition between the universal health care approach and a lower percentage of the GDP spent towards health care. It becomes quite clear in this sense that privatized health care is neither medically nor financially efficient for the continued support of the U.S.. By reforming the privatized U.S. health care system into one that it universally distributed—with the reservation that some may wish to continue using their private health care providers—a significant amount of federal funding becomes available for reallocation. The exact amount this reformation will save is under question, but according to the health care plans of the two contenders for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it appears to be considerably generous. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan expects to lower national spending by $120 billion (Hillary Clinton for President), whereas Barack Obama’s health care plan assumes upwards of $200 billion once his long-term preventative programs are fully actualized (Obama for America). For purposes of practicality and non-exclusion, I will take a
minimalist approach in assuming the approximate liberated funds from health care reform to be $100 billion. Now, approaching the subject of war funding is always deleterious business. The Iraq war is a highly controversial and expensive matter regarding federal funding. As of March 31, 2008, the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy estimates the monthly cost of our occupation to be $12 billion, approximately $144 billion annually (The Brookings Institution). Initially, costs of the war were estimated to be anywhere between $50 and $60 billion all the way up to $200 billion by Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management an d Budget director, defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War). Boy, were they dead wrong. The costs of the Operation Iraqi Freedom currently total well over $845 billion after five years of fighting and occupation—more than twice the cost and a year and a half longer than U.S. involvement in WWII and double (Dorell, Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII). Additional costs of the Iraq war are spent in the form of family condolence remunerations, $500,000 for each soldier dead (White, Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008). All of this money seems to now be wasted on a war that cannot be entirely won, and this will forever be a reminder of the Bush Administration’s financial and ethical blunders. It seems that the only way to partly make up for the financial expenses wasted on this war would be a substantial withdrawal—to the greatest extent
that this could be accomplished—of troop presence in Iraq, perhaps even in all of the Middle East countries we currently occupy. Estimates of how much money would be immediately saved from federal spending on the Iraq war are currently ambiguous, considering the amount of spending required to execute the actions necessary to achieve this conclusion. However, taking into account the one year timeframe assessed by the two Democratic candidates proposing immediate withdrawal, the annual $144 billion expense would be drastically reduced. Again, assuming a minimalist approach, the amount of federal funds liberated from Iraq war spending would be at the very least $100 billion within a one year timeframe. This is also assuming an eventual federal budgetary reform that would subsequently reduce military appropriations that currently total $1.45 trillion (War Resistors League). The resulting figure we have accumulated in squandered federal funds from these two national priorities has now reached a very, very minimalistic total of $200 billion. Considering likelihood of a Democratic win in the 2008 Presidential Election, this is a very realistic outcome for the benefit of the U.S. economy, the American people, and most importantly scientific research and development. Why, you ask, is this latter party most important? The answer to this question lies in the prospective future of human advancement and prosperity. Scientific advancement, emphasized by the scientific community, myself, and an evident societal integration with both science and technology, incontrovertibly parallels that of human knowledge. To argue otherwise is a contradiction of the principles upon which all scientific pursuit
is founded. Therefore, $200 billion spent towards scientific endeavor, compared to the negligible $3.5 billion spent on general science and remaining $113.5 billion spent towards overall physical resource research and development, is an exponentially astonishing expense towards the advancement of human knowledge and capability (National Priorities Project). As the evidence reveals, the United States has pitifully neglected perhaps the most important of all human priorities, and it is due time to make up for this grave mistake. Perhaps the repercussions of even debating this issue will not affect our children, or even our children’s children, but one day the descendents of our society may look back at their ancestors and curse our inaction. And it will be a very sad day indeed when mankind must face the consequences of his incompetence and time wasted in pursuance of trivialities. Nothing can be argued more transparently, that only by devoting a significant effort on behalf of the future of humanity can we resolve present world problems and ensure the wellbeing and continued existence of our species. There is no if to this to this vindication, only a must. Human beings, conquerors of both Earth and sky, indomitably decide the fate of their own complaisance and civility. God help us.
Works Cited
1. United Nations. World Health Organization.The World Health Report
2007 : a safer future : global public health security in the 21st century. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2007. (World Health Organization). 2. "Facts About Health Care." National Coalition on Health Care. (2008). National Coalition on Health Care. 29 APR 2008. (National Coalition on Health Care). 3. "Canada faces $160B health-care bill in 2007: report." Canadian Broadcasting Centre. 13 Nov 2007. The Canadian Press. 1 May 2008 . (The Canadian Press). 4. Tanner, Michael D. “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World.” Cato Policy Analysis no. 613. 18 March 2008. (Tanner). 5. “The World Factbook.” Washington, D.C.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2008; Bartleby.com, 2008. <www.bartleby.com/151>. 1 May 2008. (The World Factbook). 6. "Hillary's Plan to Provide Health Care to All Americans." Hillary for President. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 1 May 2008 . (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War). 9. Dorell, Oren. "Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII." USA Today. 23 Nov 2006. Gannett Co., Inc.. 1 May 2008 . (Dorell, Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII). 10. White, Deborah. "Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008." About.com. 22 Apr 2008. The New York Times Company. 2 May 2008 . (White, Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008). 11. "The Federal Pie Chart." War Resisters League 2007 11 APR 2008 . (War Resisters League). 12. "Proposed Discretionary Budget, FY2008." Bringing the Federal Budget Home. 2007. National Priorities Project. 24 APR 2008
. (National Priorities Project).
H. L. Mencken, professional journalist of Scopes Trial fame, once sensibly wrote, “The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is overestimated.” Indeed, this sentiment has never been truer than in its application to the sciences. Money cannot replace great ideas nor can it replace merely good ones. It takes a brilliant mind to effectively manipulate the sciences, and humanity does not presently possess the scientific ability to create such brilliance through the sheer will of money alone. However, even with this impediment, there are certain things that money can do for the sciences that positively affect research and development. Well-funded laboratories and scientific institutions not only provide greater motivation for scientists, but also provide a cushion for experimental programs to fail without resulting in financial ruination for the company. But the question arises, with our national debt currently at a staggering $9 trillion, how can the federal government afford to increase the scientific budget? I have found that even the briefest of analyses will provide all the evidence needed to prove that hundreds of billions of dollars in federal expenses are currently being wasted to support a detrimental health care system and an unnecessary war in Iraq. To begin tackling this problem, I believe it goes without saying that the United States health care system is not the best in the world. In fact, the latest World Health Organization (WHO) report ranks U.S. health care 37th out of 190 globally recognized health care programs (World Health Organization). This evaluation is made considerably more embarrassing when compared to
the total, both federal and individual out-of-pocket, per person spending on health care, which is $6,103—the highest amount spent by any country in the world (World Health Organization). And, as if things could not appear any worse, only forty percent of Americans are covered by public health care, while 47 million Americans remain completely uninsured by any health coverage at all–these figures are also the worst out of any industrialized nation (National Coalition on Health Care). These circumstances lead to the determination that the federal government is currently supporting a failed health care system, wasting finances that would be much better spent elsewhere. And I also believe it goes without saying that the key to extracting these wasted dollars lies in the complete upheaval of the current health care system. A great question that must be entertained: what do France, Switzerland, and Canada all have in common? Besides being industrialized nations with health care quality ranked higher than the U.S., all of their health care systems are financed by lower percentages of their gross domestic product’s (GDP). Currently, annual health care appropriations for the U.S. are approximately $2.3 trillion, which is 16.6% of a $13.84 trillion GDP. This percentage of the GDP, which has risen by three points since the year 2000, is expected to reach 20% by the year 2016 (National Coalition on Health Care). Canada, whose health care ranks only seven places higher than the U.S. on the WHO report, will spend $160.1 billion on health care in 2008, or 13.6% of its $1.18 trillion GDP (The Canadian Press). France,
currently the world leader in health care quality and satisfaction, will spend approximately $227 billion, or 11% of its $2.06 trillion GDP (Tanner; The World Factbook). Switzerland, whose health care ranks 20th, is somewhere in between Canada and France. If one analyzes the relationship between these numbers and the different health care systems of the U.S. and these three foreign nations, the most striking detail resides in each country’s level of financial efficiency determined by the percentage of their GDP spent on health care. Then, there is the very obvious juxtaposition between the universal health care approach and a lower percentage of the GDP spent towards health care. It becomes quite clear in this sense that privatized health care is neither medically nor financially efficient for the continued support of the U.S.. By reforming the privatized U.S. health care system into one that it universally distributed—with the reservation that some may wish to continue using their private health care providers—a significant amount of federal funding becomes available for reallocation. The exact amount this reformation will save is under question, but according to the health care plans of the two contenders for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it appears to be considerably generous. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan expects to lower national spending by $120 billion (Hillary Clinton for President), whereas Barack Obama’s health care plan assumes upwards of $200 billion once his long-term preventative programs are fully actualized (Obama for America). For purposes of practicality and non-exclusion, I will take a
minimalist approach in assuming the approximate liberated funds from health care reform to be $100 billion. Now, approaching the subject of war funding is always deleterious business. The Iraq war is a highly controversial and expensive matter regarding federal funding. As of March 31, 2008, the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy estimates the monthly cost of our occupation to be $12 billion, approximately $144 billion annually (The Brookings Institution). Initially, costs of the war were estimated to be anywhere between $50 and $60 billion all the way up to $200 billion by Mitch Daniels, the Office of Management an d Budget director, defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War). Boy, were they dead wrong. The costs of the Operation Iraqi Freedom currently total well over $845 billion after five years of fighting and occupation—more than twice the cost and a year and a half longer than U.S. involvement in WWII and double (Dorell, Iraq War About to Equal Time U.S. Spent Fighting WWII). Additional costs of the Iraq war are spent in the form of family condolence remunerations, $500,000 for each soldier dead (White, Iraq War Results & Statistics at April 20, 2008). All of this money seems to now be wasted on a war that cannot be entirely won, and this will forever be a reminder of the Bush Administration’s financial and ethical blunders. It seems that the only way to partly make up for the financial expenses wasted on this war would be a substantial withdrawal—to the greatest extent
that this could be accomplished—of troop presence in Iraq, perhaps even in all of the Middle East countries we currently occupy. Estimates of how much money would be immediately saved from federal spending on the Iraq war are currently ambiguous, considering the amount of spending required to execute the actions necessary to achieve this conclusion. However, taking into account the one year timeframe assessed by the two Democratic candidates proposing immediate withdrawal, the annual $144 billion expense would be drastically reduced. Again, assuming a minimalist approach, the amount of federal funds liberated from Iraq war spending would be at the very least $100 billion within a one year timeframe. This is also assuming an eventual federal budgetary reform that would subsequently reduce military appropriations that currently total $1.45 trillion (War Resistors League). The resulting figure we have accumulated in squandered federal funds from these two national priorities has now reached a very, very minimalistic total of $200 billion. Considering likelihood of a Democratic win in the 2008 Presidential Election, this is a very realistic outcome for the benefit of the U.S. economy, the American people, and most importantly scientific research and development. Why, you ask, is this latter party most important? The answer to this question lies in the prospective future of human advancement and prosperity. Scientific advancement, emphasized by the scientific community, myself, and an evident societal integration with both science and technology, incontrovertibly parallels that of human knowledge. To argue otherwise is a contradiction of the principles upon which all scientific pursuit
is founded. Therefore, $200 billion spent towards scientific endeavor, compared to the negligible $3.5 billion spent on general science and remaining $113.5 billion spent towards overall physical resource research and development, is an exponentially astonishing expense towards the advancement of human knowledge and capability (National Priorities Project). As the evidence reveals, the United States has pitifully neglected perhaps the most important of all human priorities, and it is due time to make up for this grave mistake. Perhaps the repercussions of even debating this issue will not affect our children, or even our children’s children, but one day the descendents of our society may look back at their ancestors and curse our inaction. And it will be a very sad day indeed when mankind must face the consequences of his incompetence and time wasted in pursuance of trivialities. Nothing can be argued more transparently, that only by devoting a significant effort on behalf of the future of humanity can we resolve present world problems and ensure the wellbeing and continued existence of our species. There is no if to this to this vindication, only a must. Human beings, conquerors of both Earth and sky, indomitably decide the fate of their own complaisance and civility. God help us.
Works Cited
1. United Nations. World Health Organization.The World Health Report
2007 : a safer future : global public health security in the 21st century. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2007. (World Health Organization). 2. "Facts About Health Care." National Coalition on Health Care. (2008). National Coalition on Health Care. 29 APR 2008
Related Documents
Federal Upheaval Of National Priorities And Spending
November 2019 13
National Priorities Nqf Report
December 2019 5
Romney Curbing Out Of Control Federal Spending
November 2019 6
Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities
December 2019 34
Priorities
October 2019 25
Federal National Mortgage Association
December 2019 31More Documents from "Lori"
Temporality
November 2019 7
Federal Regulation Of Knowledge And The Future Of Humanity
November 2019 6
Federal Upheaval Of National Priorities And Spending
November 2019 13