|
|
|
 |
|
|
John Munger: Blogging for Arizona's Future |
|
 |
|
|
Oct23Written by:John Munger
10/23/2010 2:14 PM  Democrat candidates keep asking Republican candidates where the latter might cut the Federal Budget, as if this question posed some kind of difficult dilemma. But there are so many potential places to cut the Federal Budget that the question leaves one realing about where to start. Too bad the Dems have to ask.Start with the fact that the Democrat Congress this year increased all Federal Discretionary Spending by 20%---in one year. Lets eliminate that increase. Then, stop all spending increases in future years. Stop annual increases which just compound the problem.Then, lets start considering individual places to cut. For example, should the US pay farm subsidies so US farmers DON'T grow crops? Lets think that through again. Should the US consider ending its huge Suger Subsidies to US suger growers. All these subsidies not only cost the Federal government Billions, but they raise the price of these products to US consumers, too. In this category alone we could cut tens of billions.How about the US Department of Education? Isn't education fundamentally a local issue? Sure, if the Federal Government wants to provide Pell Grants and scholarships, fine. But do we need an entire secretariat costing tens of billions to do that?What about the Military Budget. Even John McCain, a major supporter of the military insists that every year the US buys equipment that the Pentagon does not want. Lets cut that spending.Federal spending for Local Earmarks cost billions. Get the Federal Government, and the politicians who vote for Pork, out of that business. It is corrupt and the process is helping to break us.Unemployment insurance. The US government pays an unemployed person unemployment insurance for two years. Just two years ago we paid for six months. Lets go back to paying for six months. We survived for decades with those benefits.How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Why is the Federal Government in that business? If they want to build some free or subsidized housing do it, and turn it over to the applicable States. But eliminate the Federal Department.
We could save Billions, and be far more efficient.Why do we pay a half billion a year to the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. It was a fine idea fifty years ago when the
nation's television media consisted of three broadcast TV networks and we needed more content. Are we short of content today? I don't think so, and I think the Corporation For Public Broadcasting is obsolete and should be abandoned.How about the National Endowment For the Arts? Frankly, what business does the US government have in deciding what is "good" art and who should be subsidized? And, really, has the government proven that its taste is all that great? Nope. Indeed, if you dig deeper you will find that even artists don't agree on what art is. Why should we have a group of art nazis from DC telling us what is good. Or are they just making their decisions based on who amongst their buddies needs some cash? Indeed, some have admitted that they actually TRY to dictate standards, and some even personally invest in what they have the Federal government subsidize, in order to build demand and value for their own art investments. Lets get back to letting the People--the Market---decide what is good art. Can the Federal government's involvement and save Billions.Another bad use of Federal money is for advertising. Public Service adds. Have you ever taken note of all of the public service adds that are paid for with your tax money? I can tell you that about every second ad on CNN Espanol, for example, is some kind of federally funded public service ad. How to apply for federal jobs, how to save our forests, how to take care of your children, blah, blah, blah.These are just some of the areas where we should at least reconsider the expenditure of Federal monies. But, then, we might also consider what the Brits are doing. How about instituting across the board spending cuts in every remaining program. Say 10%. Do any of us doubt that the Federal government does not wast 10% of its money? So lets cut it and force efficiencies.This is fun! Gets the juices going. And I hope each person who reads this will go to ImagineArizona.com and add suggestions where they think the Federal Government could cut spending. You can do it in the Comment section following the Blog on this subject, or in the Comments section on the Home Page, or in the Question and Answer Box. Lets get a conversation going. And then lets elect politicians who are willing to make it happen.Tags:4 comment(s) so far...
aspirateurs nice homepage
# aspirateurs By TrackBack on
3/26/2013 8:58 PM
|
ted's woodworking review all you need to know on this site
# ted's woodworking review By TrackBack on
3/27/2013 7:20 PM
|
the tao of badass all you need to know on this site
# the tao of badass By TrackBack on
4/3/2013 8:36 PM
|
polo ralph lauren avait été abattu à Ajaccio alors quil circulait en voiture. Ils sintéresseront notamment aux titulaires du poste de premier vice-président du Conseil dEtat et des cinq autres vice-présidents, Dans les principales artères daccès au stade, Mais maillot football 2013 il nest plus ce quil était, Il a également fait dans la sobriété lors de son échauffement sur Smells like teen spirit de Nirvana ou lors de sa présentation officielle 5 minutes avant le début du match sur Hey Jude des Beatles. LAssemblée nationale ne siège que polo arsenal semaines par an et délègue entre-temps ses pouvoirs législatifs au Conseil dEtat, ?La qualité et le go?t des produits se sont à ce point améliorés quil a décidé de continuer. segment ultra concurrentiel occupé polo ralph lauren liPad mini 7.
# polo ralph lauren By TrackBack on
5/15/2013 4:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Health care reform Arizona can tackle | By: John F. Munger
August 28, 2009 - 4:22PM
Regardless of federal actions, Arizona can be a national model for health care reform.
By simply fixing what needs to be fixed, and not creating huge bureaucracies, bankrupting the state, or intervening between doctors and patients, we can solve the principal problems of rising costs of care and accessibility of care for all.
First, to finally control costs we must reinvigorate consumer cost decision-making, which is the most fundamental pressure favoring lowering costs. Medical consumers make few cost decisions and simply pass the medical bill to their insurer. Yet, in medical procedures for which consumers are compelled to make cost decisions for medical care that is not generally covered by insurance, such as for corrective laser eye surgery or cosmetic surgery, costs have dropped drastically in the last 20 years because of competitive forces.
The first steps Arizona should empower consumer decision-making and competition in medicine. First, on the supply side we should allow Arizonans to competitively select any health insurance program available in any state, rather than limit Arizonans' choices to a few programs selected by our regulators. On the demand side, we should invigorate consumer decision-making by requiring that all medical and pharmaceutical providers quote their prices on a public Web site each month for public comparison.
Just as insurance companies give safe driving discounts and nonsmoking discounts, they will soon start to provide hot lines to help people select several reasonably priced alternatives for medical care or products as well as "good decision-making" discounts for insureds who act rationally in selecting reasonably priced care. Consumer choice will be enhanced. Prices will begin to decline.
In addition, Arizona should adopt a simple tort reform measure that, as with contract-related litigation today, requires that parties losing medical malpractice actions pay at least some reasonable portion of the winners' attorney's fees. Used by the English for centuries, this creates risk and causes all players to carefully analyze their case before they file, and would substantially reduce the number of frivolous medical malpractice actions, and medical costs, in Arizona.
Finally, Arizona could reduce medical costs by requiring that medical insurers give discounts to consumers who allow their medical records to be transmitted electronically via a secured system, thereby reducing costs of care. Again, no requirement - just a consumer option.
Reform the coverage
Adopting these three simple measures would drastically reduce medical costs. In turn, that would improve accessibility of medical care to more people. But we can easily do more.
Arizona should require that all insurance policies be portable and not tied to employment. We must allow individuals and associations to create groups in order to negotiate favorable health insurance not tied to employment.
We should require that all persons with pre-existing illnesses be accepted into medical insurance pools. Persons with pre-existing problems caused by their own lifestyles, such as obesity, smoking, dangerous activities or hobbies, or who repeatedly did not follow medical recommendations of their doctors, could be required to pay a limited additional premium for their lifestyle choices and the burden they cause to the health care system. But persons with pre-existing illnesses not based on lifestyle choices, and who follow reasonable medical directions, would not incur any additional premium.
Finally, we must assure that all those remaining who still cannot afford health insurance have easy access to our state Medicaid program and KidsCare for children. With both programs, the main problem is that people simply do not sign up until they need medical care - but, in reality, most do have coverage once they need it. But we must constantly re-evaluate our entry levels to assure fairness.
Arizona can solve the problems of rising health care costs and accessibility by simply fixing the problems that need to be fixed. Let's do it now!
John Munger of Tucson is the chairman of ImagineArizona.com, a public policy organization that promotes solutions to Arizona's public policy issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
More Ideas from ImagineArizona! |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imagine arizona, state of arizona public policy, future of arizona, bi-partisan leadership |
|
|