The Futures of the US - Recently Updated Pages

Budget Resources

ProfessorWantanabe — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:01:18 CDT

A. General (students' materials)

Citizens Guide to Budget (Charts & Tables about Revenue, Spending, Debt)

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget (scroll down to the pdf of Summary Tables)

Fiscal Year 2009 US Budget (Summary Tables)

Fiscal Year 2008 US Budget (Summary Tables)

View the GAO's Our Nation's Fiscal Outlook

Google Audio Indexing
Hear the Candidate speak: Enter "budget" or "economy." Select McCain or Obama.

On The Issues.org Choose "Issues" from the top tab.

Annual Reports for Social Security & Medicare

B. Instructional (simulations, quizzes, lectures)

Death and Taxes (Interactive Chart)

National Debt Clock (Counter $$ of current debt) < http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ >

National Debt & Savings Clocks (Counter $$ on both debt & savings)

Source of National Debt (VIDEO Review of Impact of National Debt)

Oreos & US Budget Priorities (VIDEO clip)

The National Priorities Project (Counter on Cost $$ of War; Interactive Tables on Trade-offs in the Budget)

C. Thinking about the Issue

Deficits and Debt 101 from Center for American Progress

Things to Know about the Budget

ProfessorWantanabe — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:14:44 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

A. Budget Quantities

1. In Fiscal Year 2010 the federal government expects to collect $2,713 billion in taxes from individuals and businesses. Individuals will contribute 64% of the funds and businesses 30%. The trend has shown a steady rise in individuals' share of total taxes and decline in the share of business taxes. Social Insurance and retirement receipts [$949 billions/2009] accounted for almost a third of total revenue increase from 2003 through 2007. A Citizen's Guide Chart 2 [Attachment below for Federal Budget Totals - Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/browse.html scroll down to Supplemental Tables]

Federal Tax Revenue since 1980

2. In Fiscal Year 2010 the federal government will spend $3,625 billions. This spending is divided between discretionary spending at 39%, mandatory spending at 53% and net national interest at 8% [Attachment bottom of page ]. In 2007, Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Social Security Administration, plus interest on debt held by the public, accounted for approximately three-fourths of the government’s total net cost. Medicare cost of $371 billion and Medicaid cost of $197 billion accounted for more than 80 percent of HHS’ total net cost in 2007. More spending in one area of the budget usually entail less spending in other areas. See the Trade-Offs and Quick Reports at National Priorities Project.

3. In the Fiscal Year 2010 federal budget the difference between tax revenues and spending is estimated at a negative $1.4 billion. [Article: Congressional Budget Office "Monthly Budget Review" ]. To finance this budget deficit, the government will debt finance, that is, borrow funds from creditors. The government has also borrowed excess annual cash flows from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and similar funds to finance other government cost. Including interest, the government owes $4 trillion to these funds, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the government. This borrowing will add to our total National Debt of $11.6 trillion. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.9 billion per day since September 28, 2007! Since the National Debt is owned by the nation, each citizen's share of this debt is $38,406.83 [National Debt Clock].

UPDATE: How Big is too Big? This year, the Treasury may have to raise more than $1.4 trillion in debt, according to Morgan Stanley, to finance not just the deficit but the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. “It’s going to be painful to be faced with humungous auction after humungous auction especially when competing against Europe,” which is funding its own bail-outs, says one Wall Street analyst. The Treasury got a warning of this earlier this month, when yields on its bonds briefly spiked. [Yields rise when demand falls in order to make the bond more attractive to buyers.]

But much of the deficit is still financed by foreigners, ... —and with the inexorable climb in Medicare and Social Security costs as the baby-boomers retire now under way—investors may need to be compensated much more than they are now to keep on buying America’s debt.

4. Surpluses last appeared in the federal budget between 1998 to 2001.

5. The size of the budget deficit widens when the government reduces taxes without adjusting spending. In June 2001 President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) involving a $1.35 trillion tax cut over ten years. In March 2002 President Bush signed into law the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA) reducing taxes for depreciation and capital gains. In May 2003 President Bush signed into law The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) which included a $350 billion tax cut. In February of 2008 the US Congress approved a $168 billion economic stimulus plan involving tax rebates. Nearly all of the tax cuts enacted since 2001 expire at the end of 2010. In October 2008 the US Congress approved the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Making the tax cuts permanent would generate large revenue losses over the next 10 years. The Brookings Institute estimates making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years. By 2014, the annual revenue loss would amount to $400 billion, or 2 percent of gross domestic product — almost the size of this year's federal budget deficit. Paying for the tax cuts would require monumental reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. To offset the revenue losses in 2014 would require, for example, a 48 percent reduction in Social Security benefits, a 57 percent cut in Medicare benefits, or a 117 percent increase in corporate taxes. The Brookings Institute

6. The size of the budget deficit widens when the government increases overall spending without adjusting taxes. Spending on "Security," the largest budget item, has risen steadily from $290 billion in 2001 to $695 billion in 2010. "Interest" payment on the national debt, the second largest budget item, has risen from $206 billion in 2001 to $260 billion in 2008. In 2003 the Prescription Drug Benefit plan, an added benefit to Medicare, was enacted. The cost of the Drug Benefit plan will increase as the number of persons 65 years and older rises during the next 20 years.

7. Supplemental spending widens the size of the budget deficit because it is not accounted for in the "official" federal budget passed by Congress but must be paid for. For 2008 President Bush signed a $162 billion supplemental spending bill that will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the end of his presidency into next year and also includes a new GI Bill, an expansion of unemployment benefits that Bush called “measured” and $2.7 billion for an emergency fund to help states hit by disasters[6/30/08]. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (enacted October 3, 2008) authorizes the US Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities from the nation's banks. This "bailout" package of $700 billion will add to the national debt! See how large the $700 billion bailout is compared to Bailouts in US history. Pan over the Names column: How much is $700 billion? [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-09-25-bailout-comparison_N.htm?POE=click-refer] Article: How Much is $700 Billion (2)

8. The size of the budget deficit widens when more citizens qualify for entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (Supplemental Children's Health Insurance Program). Citizens qualify for Social Security and Medicare based on age, the earliest is 62.5 years for Social Security and 65 for Medicare. The pending retirement of 80 million "Baby Boomer Generation (1946 to 1964)" between 2008 and 2030 will increase spending on both programs significantly. More citizens qualify for Medicaid and SCHIP when their family incomes fall below a set cut-off. When the economy weakens the government spends more on Medicaid and SCHIP to assist families. [ Trustee Report of Social Security & Medicare }

Old Age Survivors (SS) and Disabilty Insurance (DI)

Health Insurance (HI): Medicare
2009 Annual Trustee Report

Chart C—Income and Cost Rates
(Percentage of taxable payroll)

9. The question of who owns our National Debt is an interesting one[National Debt & Savings Clocks ]. Of the nation's $11.6 trillion dollar debt, government agencies own 43% and the public owns 57%. Total Privately Held ownership is divided between both domestic (49%) and foreign (51%) ownership. [Source: Ownership of Federal Securities Table OSF-2 ] China is the largest foreign holder of US national debt at $801.5 billion followed by Japan at $677.2 billion. [Source:Foreign Ownership of US Debt ] Article: US Debt and how it got so large

Source:Who owns the National Debt FAQ The Social Security trust fund owns $2.2 trillion of these assets earning $105.3 billions in interest for the trust fund in 2008.

10. Non-partisan view from the BBC Special Reports. Select "ECONOMY." Article: Economic battle is joined in race

B. Budget Structures

The framework used by Congress to formulating the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and by other budget legislation. In general, after the President delivers his State of the Economy speech in February his budget proposal is submitted to Congress. Both houses of Congress deliberate on the proposed budget before approval. The federal government's fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calendar year.

C. Budget Stakeholders

Taxpayers now and in the future: "Pay now or Pay later"
Because taxes are taken out of current earnings and redistributed to the Government, both private individuals and businesses care about "how much" their earnings are reduced.

More earnings sent to the Government now means less income available to spend on items of private interest.
By debt financing the budget deficit in the present, tax obligations are shifted forward becoming a responsibility for future taxpayers.

Beneficaries now and in the future: "Help me! No, help me!"
Beneficiaries of government spending are many including government agencies, employees, subcontractors to the government and program beneficiaries.

If a government agency or program does not receive sufficient funding, then the program or agency must shrink which reduces its ability to serve the public and may require job cuts for both subcontractors and program employees.
Program beneficiaries are those who receive direct services or benefits from the government program or agency. For example, cutting funds to SCHIP reduces the number of uninsured children who can receive medical care services.
Or the inability of the government to meet its future financial obligation, for example, to the elderly on Social Security may increase the number of elderly living in poverty in the future.

WFS Presentation

ProfessorWantanabe — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:16:19 CDT

To view the presentations, download and open the Attachments below.

WFS Presentation - Climate

MKauffman — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:15:41 CDT

Below, in the attachments section, are the slides from the presentation on climate change from the WFS-09 conference. It's in two parts because of file size limitations, and was presented as a whole.

The Futures of the US Home

ProfessorWantanabe — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:23:54 CDT

It is our pleasure to welcome you to The Futures of the U.S. project conducted by graduate students in the Futures Studies program at the University of Houston. The graduate students in this course have assembled material on the seven key long-term issues affecting the future of the United States and provide critical information important to public discussion of the Presidential election. The Futures of the U.S. material can be used before and after the Presidential election in discussions about the likely long-term future of our country. We have chosen the year of 2028 as our time horizon. By 2028 another five Presidential elections and many other events will occur and the potential for change and surprise is vast. Our mission in the University of Houston Futures Studies program is to bring futures thinking into the whole educational system so that we are better informed and prepared for they ways in which our country and the world might develop. You may be interested in visiting our wiki, Foresight Education Project at http://foresighteducation.org .

World Futures Society
These materials were presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the World Future Society on Saturday, July 18 (4:00 PM session), in Chicago IL. The presentations by Dr. Bishop are attachments at the bottom of this page. Presentations by Morgan Kauffman and Kay Strong are posted under the Climate Issues and Budget Issues, respectively.

Seven Key Issues:

Budget Issues
Climate Issues
Energy Issues
Global Issues
Health Issues
Instrastructure Issues
Immigration Issues

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) release: 2009 Congressional & Presidential Transition contains the latest on these issues.

WFS Presentation - Globalization

DarkoCH — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:24:28 CDT

Globalization is a complex process of economic, social, technological, cultural, and political changes that increases the integration and interaction between people and organizations across the world.
This presentation presents an overview of trends that have shaped this process so far, gives an indication of its effects as well as two basic scenarios of subsequent development.

The Candidates on Climate

MKauffman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:53:18 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

Google's keyword search Hear the Candidate speak: Enter "climate." Select Obama or Biden.

On The Issues.org Choose "Issues" from the top tab.

Websites:

Barack Obama http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families.

Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change. Obama will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. He will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

Review of their positions:

Issue: On reducing US greenhouse gas emissions

Obama aims to bring domestic greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below these levels by 2050. He supports a strong limit on greenhouse gas emissions - also known as a "carbon cap" - and believes businesses should trade the right to emit greenhouse gases in a cap-and-trade scheme similar to the European one.
Unlike the European scheme, Obama believes polluters should not be given a number of free permits which they can then trade. Instead, he believes permits should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. "The choice not to auction is, in effect, a choice to give the permits to the incumbent polluters," says Dan Esty, an environmental law professor at Yale University who spoke on Obama's behalf in a debate in September. "Auctions create the incentive for people that can provide solutions to come into the market and help others solve their problems, help others not have to pay."
Obama says a carbon tax would be redundant to an effectively designed cap and says he would not pursue a combination of the two policies.

Issue: On agreeing to binding emission limits within an international treaty

Obama believes the US must rejoin the international climate change negotiations. He does not believe the US should wait for China and India to agree to binding emissions before it does so, but he believes that those nations must not be far behind in making their own commitments. Obama believes that the immediate challenge is to develop the consensus in Congress needed to cap domestic emissions, and that domestic action will strengthen the US's ability to engage the international community in the Copenhagen process set to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

Issue: On investments into alternative and renewable energy

Obama says he will invest $150 billion over 10 years in the development and deployment of renewable energy, including a long-term extension of the production tax credit for renewable energy and the doubling of federal research and development funds for clean energy.

Issue: On managing the costs of rising energy bills and reducing greenhouse gas emissions

Obama says he will take steps to reduce the burden of rising energy prices on US families, including an emergency energy rebate, a plan to reduce price speculation in the oil market and a programme to protect one million low-income homes from the effects of the weather.

Issue: On exploiting domestic oil reserves

Obama has reservations about drilling for oil development off US coastlines. He will however consider a package that provides meaningful advances towards a clean-energy future, while allowing for limited outer-continental shelf drilling.

Issue: On coal power stations and carbon capture and sequestration

Obama would also devote part of the revenue from the auction of emissions permits to the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technology. He supports developing five commercial-scale, coal-fired power plants capable of capturing their carbon emissions and storing them away with the private sector.

Issue: On nuclear power

Obama told Nature that it will be difficult to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power and that all-non-carbon forms of energy (which include nuclear) must be investigated. Obama does not believe that the Department of Energy's proposed underground nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for the permanent disposal of the entire nation's nuclear waste. "Let's not torque the choice toward nuclear," said Esty. "McCain favours a big commitment to nuclear power that could involve expenditures of $300 billion that may or may not be the right path forward."

Source: NEW SCIENTIST review of the candidates http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn14804-climate-change-how-obama-and-mccain-compare.html

Health Resources

FutureoftheUS — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:04:22 CST

Tips 4 Teachers

General (students' materials)

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Information and analysis on major health care issues facing the US)

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage 2007 US Bureau of Census (pp 19-26)

Running for Cover, The Economist, Oct 2008. (A special report on health care as it appears in the election from a major business magazine.)

Healthcare Infrastructure in 2019,Institute for Alternative Futures, 2009. (A successful healthcare infrastructure for the next decade.)

The McKinsey Quarterly Excess spending on US health care (Chart Focus Newsletter January 2009)

Instructional (simulations, quizzes, lectures)

The Price We Pay For Health: US and Canada (Lesson plan, grades 9-12; compares US & Canadian systems)

Test Your Health Care Knowledge (quiz)

What's Health Care Costing You? (quiz)

Presentation Slide on Policy and Costs (presentation)

Health Care Crisis: Who's at Risk? (Website that goes along with PBS program of the same name. Contains links to discussions, classroom materials, etc. that go with program. Also has link to get a copy of program).

Teacher's Guide to 2008 Presidential Election Issues - Health Care (Guide for mock elections & debates - contains issue guides and activities for students)

HEALTH COVERAGE ISSUES

FutureoftheUS — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:45:08 CST

Tips 4 Teachers: HOME
Statement of Issue

Health care in the United States is a growing concern.

The United States spends $1.50 of every $10 of national income on health care, approximately double what other major industrialized countries spend per person. U.S. health care spending is expected to reach $4.2 trillion in 2016, or 20 percent of the GDP. At the same time, the amount of money the United States spends on health care does not translate into longer lives. The U.S. is toward the bottom of the list of life expectancy in developed nations.

Increasing costs are placing more financial burden on citizens, companies, and all levels of government. More than 45 million Americans (about 1 out 6) lack health insurance. And without adequate health insurance – either from their own or their spouse’s employer, or through tax-funded public programs – they cannot afford to get the care and medications they need. Companies that have long supplied health coverage to employees as part of their benefits packages are finding that they either have to reduce coverage or cut it out altogether. Some companies are being financially crippled by the health coverage they gave to retired employees as part of their pensions.

While many states are endeavoring to reform health care for its citizens with independent legislation and funds, others have proposed overhauling the system at the national level, suggesting universal health coverage. Government spending accounts for a growing portion of the medical economy, reaching 46 percent in 2006 as coverage of prescription drugs took effect.

The issue is a hot button politically. On one side are those that argue that good health care is a right, and that the government must offer some form of universal coverage – at least as a way for the uninsured to get insurance. They argue that by taking business profit out of health coverage, costs will be lower and care will be more accessible. On the other side are those that say that private insurance is the best way to ensure that costs stay low and that the best care is available. They argue that the availability of money in public health programs is responsible for the rising costs and inefficiency of the system. Also, they say that removing the ability to profit from the health care system will reduce innovation in medication, equipment, and procedures.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the Health section of the Futures of the U.S.!

I hope you find the information in this section to be helpful and educational. If you ever have any questions, ideas, comments, or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me ... you can send me a message me through my profile here.

Thanks!

Shawn Clark

Things to Know about Energy

FutureoftheUS — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:46:46 CST

.

Tips 4 Teachers

Quantities -- (constants (comparative), trends)

The above graphic shows the share of energy sources in the US economy. The left side shows the energy inputs, the total amount of the U.S. energy supply, and the right side shows the breakdown of how this energy is eventually spent. One can see that the majority of U.S. energy sources are fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and crude oil) with nuclear energy and renewable energy sources rounding out the U.S. energy portfolio. Roughly 71% of U.S. energy comes from domestic production with the remainder coming from imports. The industrial sector is the greatest consumer of energy (32.4%), followed by transportation (28.4%).

Fossil Fuels
Offshore Drilling. The United States consumes 20,680,000 barrels of oil per day. Currently, there are 697 million barrels of oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum reserve. (EIA) Recent estimates put the total amount of offshore oil reserves at 18 billion barrels. At the current U.S. consumption rate of 20.6 million barrels per day, these offshore reserves are estimated to provide anywhere from 16 months to 4 years of U.S. petroleum demand.

Petroleum Imports
The United States is the third largest producer of oil in the world, but still imports a large amount of its oil from foreign countries. Currently, U.S. petroleum makes up less than half of the nation's total oil demand. This dependence on imported oil drives much of the debate on energy independence from foreign oil and is driving demand for energy sources discovered, produced, and consumed in the U.S. Potential U.S.-based energy sources, aside from oil, include coal, natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear energies.

Despite many of the concerns over energy independence are related to concerns of oil profits being used by foreign governments to fuel terrorism and other activities that are outside of U.S. interests, the Energy Information Administration's statistics show that 49% of U.S. imports come from the Western Hemisphere and only 37% of U.S. petroleum is imported from the Persian Gulf (16%) and Africa (21%). The five largest sources of petroleum imports are:
Canada (18.2%)
Mexico (11.4%)
Saudi Arabia (11.0%)
Venezuela (10.1%)
Nigeria (8.4%)

U.S. dependence on oil imports has increased as daily oil consumption has increased and domestic fossil fuel production has declined. 1985 represented the shift to the modern era of growing consumption and imports of petroleum. Petroleum imports take many forms based on use, ranging from gasoline and diesel fue to chemical feedstocks and asphalt, among others.

Electricity

U.S. Electricity Production by Source

France Electricity Production by Source

The above table shows the contrast between U.S. electricity production and French electricity production. One can see that the French energy portfolio is much different. Nuclear energy and hydroelectricity account for a very large portion of France's electricity production, while coal and natural gas make up the majority of American production.

Japan Electricity Production by Source

(Source: France & Japan data from "Monthly Electricity Statistics," International Energy Agency, June 2008.)

Nuclear Power
The total amount of operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. is 104 in 31 states. The two states with the most nuclear power plants are Illinois (6) and Pennsylvania (5).(EIA)

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources provided 7% of US energy needs in 2007 and 8.4% of American electricity production. (EIA)
The EIA projects that by 2030 renewable energy sources will generate 12.5% of US electricity. (EIA)
Renewable energy growth, wind energy in particular, has grown quickly since 2005 due to government subsidies that had supported the growth of the renewables sector.

Structures – (laws, regulations, arrangements)

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Enacted by the Congress in 1975 in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo to improve the fuel economy of cars and trucks in the United States. CAFE sets a standard for the minimum miles per gallon (mpg) of a car maker's fleet for each year. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed 27.5 mpg, and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under 8500 pounds must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5 mpg in 2010.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007). EISA 2007 was signed into law December 12, 2007 and could have a significant impact on the future of energy in the United States. The following provisions of the act are of particular importance:

Renewable fuel standard requirements for the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2022, with corn ethanol limited to 15 billion gallons. Any other ethanol or biodiesel may be used to fulfill the balance of the mandate, but the balance must include 16 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol by 2022 and 5 billion gallons per year of biodiesel by 2012.
A new CAFE standard for LDVs (cars and light trucks) of 35 mpg by 2020. The Act also specifies that vehicle attribute-based standards are to be developed separately for cars and light trucks.
A CAFE credit and transfer program among manufacturers and across a manufacturer’s fleet.
Extension through 2019 of the CAFE credits specified under the AMFA. EISA2007 reduces the maximum credit by 0.2 mpg for each model year after 2014 and phases it out entirely by model year 2020.
Appliance energy efficiency standards for boilers, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, clothes washers, external power supplies, and commercial walk-in coolers and freezers.
Lighting energy efficiency standards for generalservice incandescent lighting in 2012 and sooner for general-service tubular fluorescent lighting and metal halide lamp fixtures.
Standards for industrial electric motor efficiency, requiring industrial motors of various sizes to meet the NEMA premium motor efficiency standards.
Standards for energy use in Federal buildings, requiring a 30-percent reduction by 2015.

The Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2005, which contains provisions to support construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, including Federal loan guarantees during construction.
The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, which includes tax deductions for qualified cleanfuel and electric vehicles and changes in the rules governing oil and natural gas well depletion.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which includes incentives and tax credits for biodiesel fuels and a modified depreciation schedule for the Alaska natural gas pipeline.

Stakeholders (individuals, organizations, interest groups)

Energy companies: The U.S. is the world's greatest consumer of energy, and represents a lucrative market to energy companies. Any shifts in policy, or public attitudes, toward energy consumption will have an impact on the profits of energy companies.

U.S. Government: The United States government is instrumental in setting the stage for energy policy.

Foreign Governments: Foreign nations that depend on U.S. consumption of fossil fuels have a vested interest in American energy policy.

Businesses: Energy costs along the business supply chain are important to all companies.

Individuals: American citizens are impacted by energy costs for transportation (gasoline) and at home (electricity, natural gas). The rise of basic goods like food and clothing are usually passed on to consumers by businesses facing increased energy costs.

Things to Know about Globalization

DarkoCH — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:52:58 CST

Tips 4 Teachers

A. Quantities -- constants (comparative), trends

Economic Change
In general, globalization means utilization of all available resources at their most efficient (cheapest) price. It should therefore lead to increased equality between developed and developing countries, as long as developing countries are sufficiently developed to attract and benefit from foreign investment.

- From 1950 to 1998 percent share of global GDP for developed countries (12% of world population) has fallen from 57% to 45.6%.
- The world’s 49 poorest countries together accounted for 0.4 per cent of world trade in 1999 – half of the level twenty years previously (0.8 per cent in 1980). The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are less than 2,200 calories per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s.
- The ratio between US and Chinese GDP per capita levels dropped from 12.5 in 1980 ($18,300 vs. $1,460) to 6.2 in 1995 ($23,000 vs. $3,700).
- Over the next 50 years, Brazil, Russia, India and China — the BRICs economies— could become a much larger force in the world economy. If things go as forecast, in less than 40 years, the BRICs economies together could be larger than the G6 (United States, Japan, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy) in US dollar terms.

Social & Cultural Change
Globalization leads to increased contact between citizens of different nations and cultures. Main facilitators of this contact are literacy and common language (frequently English).

- About 90% of all Internet traffic is using English.
- Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world.
- Worldwide, there is an estimated 191 million immigrants, of which 115 million live in developed countries. The last 50 years has seen an almost doubling of immigration; 20% live in the US alone, making up 13% of its population; 33% of all immigrants live in Europe;
- In 2007, 831 million passengers flew internationally and 1,249 million flew within their own country of residence. This represents an 11% growth in international traffic and an 8% growth in domestic traffic relative to 2006.

Technological Change
Currently, the dominant image of the economy is knowledge-based, meaning that knowledge drives customer value (contrasted to, for example, resources). This makes intellectual capital the basis of the economy, and telecommunications the main means of sharing and cooperating across the world. Both these trends are at the same time a product and a fuel of globalization.

- The latest statistics show that worldwide Internet penetration has increased to 21.9% of the total population of the world, ranging from 68% in North America to 2.6% in Africa. Global internet usage is three times what it was five years ago.
- The first commercial mobile phone service was launched in Japan by NTT in 1978. By November 2007, the total number of mobile phone subscriptions in the world had reached 3.3 billion, or half of the human population, which also makes the mobile phone the most widely spread technology and the most common electronic device in the world.
- Industrialized countries hold 97% of all patents, and global corporations hold 90% of all technology and product patents.

Political Change
In many ways globalization is based on the spread of market economy and democracy across the world, which make people free to cooperate and pursue their own interests. Complexity of these interests has arguably lead to decline of wars, which are almost universally bad for the economy and well-being of all parties involved.

- The global spread of democracy since the 1970s, especially after the collapse of communism, has been impressive. According to Freedom House, an American organisation that tracks global trends in political freedom, at the end of 2005 there were 122 “electoral democracies” (64% of the world’s states, compared with 40% in the mid-1980s). From there being almost no nations with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations having it in 2000.
- Ever since the end of the Cold War, the number of wars has been declining. Perhaps, more importantly, the number of wars between countries has declined even more. There have only been five since 1991; Ethiopia versus Eritrea (1998-2000), India versus Pakistan (low level, in Kashmir, since 1990), Iraq versus Kuwait (1991), Iraq versus US (2003) and Georgia versus Russia (2008). There are 15-20 wars going on right now. The uncertain count comes from the fact that there is a fuzzy line separating wars from civil disorder. The good news is that there are about 40 percent fewer conflicts than were going on in 1991, when the Cold War ended.

B. Structures – laws, regulations, arrangements

Globalization is, obviously, a global issue, and as such goes above and beyond the laws or regulations of any country. Indeed, it is unlikely that any country by itself could stop or even significantly slow down the process of globalization. Framework for globalization is mostly set through supranational institutions, particularly the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second major enabler of globalization is various free trade blocks, like the European Union, ASEAN and NAFTA.

The WTO is an international organization designed to supervise and liberalize international trade, i.e. abolish customs tariffs. The WTO has 153 members, which represents more than 95% of total world trade.

The IMF describes itself as "an organization of 185 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty." The primary mission of the IMF is to provide financial assistance to countries that experience serious financial and economic difficulties using funds deposited with the IMF from the institution's member countries.

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share of the world's nominal gross domestic product (US$16.8 trillion in 2007). The EU has developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital, including the abolition of passport control between many member states. Fifteen member states have adopted a common currency, the euro.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia. Its aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, the protection of the peace and stability of the region, and to provide opportunities for member countries to discuss differences peacefully. As of 2006, the ASEAN region has a population of about 560 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of almost US$1,100 billion, and a total trade of about US$ 1,400 billion. Its goal is to create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities in year 2020.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a trilateral trade bloc in North America created by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The agreements were signed in December 1992 by the leaders of the three countries — Brian Mulroney of Canada, Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico, and Bill Clinton of the United States but did not come into effect until January 1, 1994.

C. Stakeholders (individuals, organizations, interest groups)

Corporations - interested in globalization as its proper utilisation will lead to growth and increased profit. On the costs side, it enables them to shop for best government conditions to set up their operations and seek the areas with lower labour costs. On the profit side, it opens up the world's market and makes it easier and cheaper to compete in them. In general favourable view towards globalization, with one important exception:

Monopolies - companies that have a naturally or legally protected market will be naturally concerned with pressures of globalisation, which might require them to be managed more effectively, raise quality of their services and lower their profits. Sensitive industries (weapons, energy) often have preferred government treatment which significantly protects them from outside influence.

Working population in developed countries - generally against globalizations as it often means that jobs move abroad while at the same time foreign workers are allowed to work within their country.

Working population in developing countries - generally in favor of globalization since it increases their job chances, however marginally. However, some of them have concerns about being exploited.

Politicians - interdependency of the global system makes it harder for politicians to engage in unilateral measures, but it also affords them a convenient way in which to direct blame for domestic problems. In general, globalization is neutral for politicians and can be framed as both a positive and a negative dynamic depending on political needs and realities.

Professional class - consultants, bankers, architects and other professional employees generally welcome globalization as a vehicle to explore the world and chase for best projects and lifestyles.

Global citizens - people from diverse families who have lived in many countries and hence approach the world as a single country generally welcome globalization.

Climate Resources

MKauffman — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:44:52 CST

Tips 4 Teachers

Instructional Resources

U of Houston's Climate Change

http://climatechangeeducation.org/, a site with links to other educational sources.

http://www.facingthefuture.org/Curriculum/DownloadFreeCurriculum/tabid/114/Default.aspx, a site with downloadable material.

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ecmi/resources/stabwedge.htm, a site from the Princeton Climate Mitigation Initiative that describes 15 ways to reduce carbon emissions and contains a game for discussing those ways.

General Resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008

The IPCC climate change scenarios, 2000

The IPCC climate change report, 2007, and a brief summation of the report can be found here

A talk by David Keith on geo-engineering and altering the Earth's albedo

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf

http://labs.google.com/gaudi is a great place to hear a canditate's speeches on a subject

http://www.nphw.org/nphw08/default.htm, and http://www.nphw.org/nphw08/08_pg_facts.htm are useful sites on the human side-effects of climate change.

Green than thou, The Economist, Oct 2008 -- A report on energy and the environment as they appear in the election from one of the most popular business magazines.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-how-to-cool-earth , an article in Scientific America on geoengineering

Immigration Resources

realfut — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:44:20 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

Statistics

Foreign-born: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/ppl-174.html

Immigration statistics: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/

Projecting US Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_06projections

Pew report, Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote?: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf

Pew Social and Demographic trends: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1044293/Pew-Research-Center-Social-and-Demographic-Trends-US-Population-Projections-2005---2050.

Reports

Historical Immigration and Naturalization Legislation: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=dc60e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dc60e1df53b2f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD

Explanation of the Immigration and Nationality Act createdin 1952--note the link to Public Laws Amending the INA: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0c829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=0c829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Center for Immigration Studies report on the Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act: http://www.cis.org/articles/1995/back395.html

The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf.

Center for Immigration Studies 2005 report: http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back505.html

The New Americans -- an excellent report on the effects of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences: Report summary / Complete report

Media stories

The Washington Post Effect of Immigration on Jobs, Wages Is Difficult for Economists to Nail Down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401686.html

From Reason magazine, Immigration and Its Side Effects Nativist claims don't hold up under scrutiny: http://www.reason.com/news/show/120759.html

From USA Today, Effects of immigration debated across U.S.: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-30-immigration-cover_x.htm

From Scientific American, How Immigration May Affect Environmental Stability: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=immigrations-effect-on-evironment
From The Economist,The Lurking Monster: http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12321563

Instructional

The New Americans -- http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/foreducators_index.html. Many resources for teachers from PBS.

Quiz on foreign born population -- http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/quiz.html
A short video on the history of human migration -- http://www.newgeography.com/content/00347-human-migration-through-history

Candidates

Obama official: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/

History of Obama's voting and other activities on immigration issues: http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=IL&VIPID=1162

Obama's news articles:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=9a842dc8-4547-4d5e-8c1f-447d2564e151&&Headline=Obama+gets+Hispanic+support%3a+Poll&strParent=strParentID

McCain Official: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm

History of McCain's votes and sponsorships on immigration issues: http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=AZ&VIPID=33

McCain News articles:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/04/mccain.immigration/index.html

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/on_the_bus_with_mccain_immigration

News on immigration for both candidates:

The New York Times report with direct quotes or action summaries for each candidate on different immigration issues: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/immigration.html?excamp=GGPOobamaimmigration&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=PO-S-E-GG-NA-S-obama_immigration

Head to Head explanation each candidate's position on different immigration issues: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/06/16/20080616elex-immigrationgrid0616.html

Opinion piece on how the candidates are saying little about immigration: http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/256772

Forecasts on Globalization 2028

FutureoftheUS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:02:50 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

Forecast #1-- Baseline Future

World economy and global flow of information, ideas, goods, services and people continues unabated, with democracy and free market ideology remaining as almost the sole dominant form of governance. Importance of nation states diminished (but they retained their relevance) as powerful supranational entities take their place in ensuring a global playing field. Conflicts become more nuanced and power struggles less volatile but more widespread, as counties jostle for competitive advantage over their rivals in an attempt to attract investment and talent. Major developing countries are quickly catching up to the Western world, but there still remain countries cut off from new globalizing trends and flow of investments, chiefly in Africa. The world economy is 80 percent larger in 2028 than it was in 2000 and average per capita income is roughly 50 percent higher, but benefits of globalization are not yet global. Large parts of the world enjoy unprecedented prosperity, and a numerically large middle class is created for the first time in some formerly poor countries, but poverty remains the fact of this world too.

Rising Asia will continue to reshape globalization, giving it less of a “Made in the USA” character and more of an Asian look and feel (i.e. more collectivist and rule-based than the individualistic economies of the West). By having the fastest-growing consumer markets, more firms becoming world-class multinationals, and more favorable demographics, Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism.
Increased labor force participation in the global economy, especially by China, India, and Indonesia, had enormous effects, spurring massive internal and regional migrations. An expanded Asian-centric cultural identity may be the most profound effect of a rising Asia. Chinese universities are attracting more foreign students than Western universities, and Bollywood movies have a much larger audience than Hollywood, signifying the end of Western cultural exporting and giving rise to many specifically Asian art-forms.

Source: Excerpts from from "Globalization 2020" by National Intelligence Council

Forecast #2 -- Alternative Future

Increased inequality produced by globalization, as well as increasing realization of the fragility of the global system (two large financial crises, bio-terrorist attack and religious clashes in Europe) give rise to protectionist measures in some countries. Such measures provoke similar retaliations from other countries, and, through an escalating crises country borders are again enacted, national currencies readopted and tariffs reimposed. Collapse of the EU and ASEAN trading blocks, as well as WTO trading rules ushers us into the new era of the nation state. Multinational corporations are effectively broken down and lose much of their power. Patriotism is on the rise, and multiculturalism becomes less attractive. There is significant amount of voluntary and involuntary repatriation and a crackdown on illegal immigration (yet, highly-skilled work is still prized, perhaps more then ever).

Lack of gains from trade and collapse of many value chains, along with increased expenditure on defense lead to a severe economic depression in most parts of the world. Politicians predictably try to blame others for such circumstances, fueling regional tensions which erupt in skirmishes and border tensions and occasional wars. This further reduces emigration, as those who would like to leave are now often at risk of being labeled traitors of their country for taking their talents elsewhere at the time when their homeland needed them the most.

Many countries step outside the global patent system due to the need to reestablish value chains within their national borders. With all countries preferring home produced goods, only the most essential items are imported, and, even then, it is never certain that the originating country will give the permission to export for fear of revealing their technology through reverse engineering. As a result, R&D again becomes a secretive activity, and knowledge becomes a national product. Much of R&D is once again in the hands of the powerful military industry complex, and becomes intimately tied with the future of its respective nation state. Lack of multinational cooperation and workplace diversity stifles the economy of all but the largest countries, and many value chains are beyond repair. Some smaller regional alliances are reestablished in an effort to put the economy back on its feet (for example, the Nordic alliance), but these are few and far between.

With strong unemployment in many countries, workers are in no position to demand favorable conditions. Most labor unions cease to exist, and workers are generally happy to take any work they find. Forced retirement becomes the norm. Flexible working remains frequently used as governments, in an attempt to decrease unemployment initiate forced job sharing in many roles. Distance working is still quite frequent in larger countries, especially as some experts are spread quite thin. A few "neutral" countries profit immensely through this resurging nationalist tide, as they are able to facilitate interactions and cooperation that is still necessary. Many educational institutions are undergoing profound changes to re-educate a workforce for the national economy and address structural inefficiencies left over from specialized economies built for export.

Disillusioned with economic progress and taken up by the task of rebuilding their cultural identities, people around the world focus on the arts and humanities. It is a particular feature of this era that new national identities borrow a lot from previous multiculturalism, and many nations are created, refreshed, enriched through past intense interactions with other cultures, as well as residual immigrant communities. New books, plays, musical pieces, paintings, architecture and events create a flurry of activity especially welcome in a newly escapist culture seeking distraction from the state of the economy and realizing more and more that life should be enjoyed in the moment. While differences between countries increases, they all follow the same pattern of increasing aesthetic appreciation, which also translates into greater concern for nature, and for the welfare of their compatriots. New seed of trust are built through non-government organisations seeking to help smaller and more isolated countries which have had a much harder time adopting to the new realities of the world.

Forecasts on Healthcare 2028

realfut — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:01:06 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

A. The Projections of the Congressional Budget Office: The Expected Future

The Congressional Budget Office made projections of the future spending on health care in the U.S. These projections were based on the absence of changes in federal law, and were based on the historical growth rate of health care spending, including federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

Total spending on health care in the U.S. would rise from 16% of the GDP in 2007 to 25% of the GDP in 2025, 37% in 2050, and 49% in 2082.
Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid would rise from 4% of the GDP in 2007 to 7% of the GDP in 2025, 12% in 2050, and 19% in 2082.

Assumptions of the CBO's projections:

These projections assume no changes to the federal laws governing Medicare and Medicaid spending.
For the long term, the projections assume the rise in health care costs would cause employers and employees to alter their behavior - employers are assumed to increase employee contributions, reducing coverage, and increasing out-of-pocket charges. Employees are assumed to either shift to lower-premium plans or to limit their use of health insurance. These assumptions are added into the projections because the use of historic growth rates alone would eventually allow health care spending to exceed GDP.

B. Alternative Futures for Health Care

Alternatives based on COST:

On either side of the CBO's projections are two alternative: a worst-case scenario and a best-case scenario.
In the worst-case scenario, in which the medical expenditures grow 2.5% or more over the growth of the GDP, medical costs spiral up and out of control, forcing many employers to drop employee coverage, massive cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending, and public hospital and clinic closures as they go unpaid.

The worst-case scenario would likely have much wider implications than just the health care industry. Employers that could or would not drop employee coverage would face huge costs that could potentially cripple them. Insurance companies could face massive costs as payments rise, resulting in either huge losses or dropped customers. State governments would be strapped with growing Medicaid costs. Personal debt would rise as people turn to credit cards to pay for health care.

In the best-case scenario, in which health care costs increase more slowly than the overall rate of GDP growth, health care costs become manageable, and spending falls as a percentage of incomes and the GDP.

Alternatives based on COVERAGE:
According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care coverage for all its citizens. Universal health care coverage is a term that encompasses many different kinds of programs, from tax-funded automatic coverage for every citizen, to mandatory insurance coverage.

Examples of health care programs in other countries:

Canada -The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service. About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry and vision care. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.

England - The National Health Service provides the majority of health care in England, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term health care, ophthalmology and dentistry. The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948, and is considered the world's first universal health care system provided by government. With the exception of small subsidized charges for prescriptions, dentistry and ophthalmology (which themselves are free to children, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low incomes), all treatment is free. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population, and generally as a top-up to NHS services.

The Netherlands -The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.

Germany - Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883. As mandatory health insurance, it originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees, but has gradually expanded to cover virtually the entire population. Currently 85% of the population is covered by a basic 'Statutory Health Insurance' plan, which provides the standard level of coverage. The remainder opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits. According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.

Finland - In Finland, public medical services at clinics and hospitals are run by the municipalities (local government) and are funded 76% by taxation, 20% by patients through access charges, and 4% by others. Private provision is mainly in the primary care sector. There are very few private hospitals. The main hospitals are either municipally owned (funded from local taxes) or run by the medical teaching universities (funded jointly by the municipalities and the national government). According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland's is in the top 4 of EU countries in terms of satisfaction with their hospital care system: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%. Finnish health care expenditures are below the European average. The private medical sector accounts for about 14 percent of total health care spending. Only 8% of doctors choose to work in private practice, and some of these also choose to do some work in the public sector.

Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:

Common arguments forwarded by opponents of universal health care systems include:

Health care is a basic human right or entitlement.
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.
About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork.
Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system.
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails.
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care.
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal healthcare plan at 59%, which is up from 49% in 2002. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present.

Health care is not a right. As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.
If universal health care is provided by federally mandated purchase of health insurance, it may be unconstitutional, since the Constitution does not give the federal government this right and reserves all non-mentioned rights to the States or the People.
Universal health care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths.
Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.
Universal health care would reduce efficiency because of more bureaucratic oversight and more paperwork, which could lead to fewer doctor-patient visits. Advocates of this argument claim that the performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.
Many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage.
The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. The health care safety net, which includes free medical clinics, charity care, nonprofits and government-run community hospitals, provides necessary care to the uninsured.
The widely quoted health care system ranking by the World Health Organization, in which the US system ranked below other countries' universal health care systems, used biased criteria, giving a false sense of those systems' superiority.
Empirical evidence on the Medicare single payer-insurance program demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates. As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare's spending.
Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.

C. The Future of Employee Health Benefits

The Economist just published an article that describes how a proposal to tax employer-provided health benefits as ordinary income could radically change the landscape of health coverage in the United States. Individuals would then seek coverage in many different forms--some provided by government, some by employers, some purchased on the open market.

GLOBAL ISSUES

FutureoftheUS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:46:32 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers: HOME
Statement of Issue

Globalization is a complex process of economic, social, technological, cultural, and political changes that increases the integration and interaction between people and companies across the world. It has accelerated over the past two decades because of several developments that have reduced old barriers to cooperation, including:

* end of Cold war and spread of democracy and capitalism
* rise of internet and mobile communications
* free trade liberalizations, including free trade blocks (NAFTA, European Union)
* widely available air travel and universal shipping companies
* unified currency and free travel zones (European Union)

US politicians often discuss the economic effects of globalization. On one hand, globalization has given us cheaper consumer goods, and access to interesting new products from all over the world. It has also helped some poorer countries become more economically secure and technologically advanced. On the other hand, things that were once made in America are now being made abroad, which has led to the loss of millions of jobs and greater dependency on those other countries. Also, people in other countries sometimes argue that globalization has given America too much power over their country's affairs; and also allowed the US to export pollution that the country won't allow inside its own borders.

“Globalization means that the "butterfly effect" is everywhere at work. The mistakes of a stockbroker in Singapore or the collapse of the Baht in Bangkok, the decisions of a Finnish industrial concern, or what the Governor of Minas Gerais in Brazil decides to do about his State's debt, have had consequences for the world as a whole.” -- Jacques Chirac, Former President of France

IMF on globalization: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/053008.htm
Wikipedia on globalization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

Dear students, welcome!

I have lived in three different countries, have been exposed to both communism and democracy, to both peace and war, and work in an office with people from 30 different countries who speak a total of 70 languages. Globalization is therefore a topic I feel closely involved with, and of which I have a mostly positive opinion, while also being mindful of its darker side. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have, and assist you in any way I can. Good luck!

Regards from Switzerland,
Darko

The Candidates on the Budget

FutureoftheUS — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:23:09 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

Google's keyword search Hear the Candidate speak: Enter "budget" or "economy." Select Obama or Biden.

On The Issues.org Choose "Issues" from the top tab.

FactCheck.org A nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

Obama on the U.S. Budget & the Economy

Obama on the Economy (The Obama Economic Plan + videos)

Latest Obama Comprehensive Tax Plan (The Obama Website)

Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq

The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed

We heard the President say he has a stimulus plan to boost our economy, but we know his plan leaves out seniors and fails to expand unemployment insurance, and we know it was George Bush's Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok, and take our economy down this dangerous road. What we need to do now is put more money in the pockets of workers and seniors, and expand unemployment insurance for more people and more time. And I have a plan that to do just that.
Source: Response to 2008 State of the Union address Jan 28, 2008

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out

Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them

Every proposal I've put forward during this campaign we have paid for, and we have specified where that money is going to come from. Let's just look at our tax code because it's a great example of how we could provide relief to ordinary citizens who are struggling to get by. Right now we've got a whole host of corporate loopholes and tax havens. There's a building in the Cayman Islands that houses supposedly 12,000 US-based corporations. That's either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world, and we know which one it is. If we close some of those loopholes, we've put forward tax relief plans, that will not only restore fairness to our tax code, but it also puts money into the pockets of hard-working Americans who need it right now, who will spend it, and will actually improve our economic growth over time, particularly at a time when we're seeing a credit crunch. But it requires leadership from the white house that restores that sense that we're all in this together. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007

Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending

We were told by our President that we could fight two wars, increase our military budget by 74%, spend more on education, initiate a prescription drug plan, have tax cuts, all at the same time. We were told by Congress that they could make up for lost revenue by cutting government waste.The result is the most precarious budget situation we have seen in years. We now have an annual budget deficit of almost $300 billion, not counting more than $180 billion we borrow every year from the Social Security Trust Fund.It is not the debt that is most troubling. The bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President's tax cuts, 47.4% of which went to the top 5% income bracket.We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.187-189 Oct 1, 2006

McCain on the U.S. Budget & the Economy

McCain on Jobs for America (The McCain Economic Plan + video)

Latest McCain Jobs for America (The McCain Website)

List of budgetary spending priorities

McCain would “maintain status” on spending for:

AIDS programs
Environmental programs
Foreign aid
Housing projects
Job training programs
Medicaid & Medicare
Student loan programs

McCain would “slightly increase” spending for:

Education (K-12)
Law enforcement
Military & Veterans Benefits
Border Control

McCain would “slightly decrease” spending for:

NASA
Welfare

McCain would "eliminate" spending for:

Arts funding

Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy

Q: Why should we continue a Republican in the White House with the current kind of economic record?

A: I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills. I will impose some fiscal discipline. We will clean up our act and we will regain the confidence of the American people as being careful stewards of our tax dollars, and we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China, then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in America has been required to do.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending

Q: If we're talking about a recession in the next few months, in 2008, what kind of short-term, more immediate government fixes would you propose to try to keep the slowdown diminished or to reverse it? And would you support them even if they added to th government deficit?

A: The first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending. Out-of-control spending is what caused the interest rates to rise. It causes people to be less able to afford to own their own homes. We need to stop the spending And the way we can get our budget under control is to have strong, fundamental fiscal underpinnings. The second thing that we need to do, of course, is stop spending $400 billion a year overseas to oil-producing countries that come right out of our economy immediately. Some of that money goes, unfortunately, to fund terrorist organizations. We've got to develop technologies to reduce this dependency on foreign oil, and eventually eliminate it, and stop this outflow of some $400 billion a year.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in S.C. sponsored by Fox News Jan 10, 2008

Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength

Q: Does our country's financial situation create[sic] a security risk?

A: Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue. We have many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. Obviously, we've been on a spending spree. If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion of America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those monies will go to terrorist organizations.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican debate Dec 12, 2007

Republicans have forgotten how to control spending

Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?

A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States, I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we've got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Veto all pork-barrel bills and announce pork spenders

Q: How will you be different, in any way, from Pres. Bush?

A: I would have vetoed spending bill after spending bill after pork-barrel project after pork-barrel project, in the tradition of President Reagan. The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel items famous all over America. We're going to stop it.

Q: What specific programs would you cut if you were president?

A: Line-item veto is the best tool. We need it very badly.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

IMMIGRATION ISSUES

realfut — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:08:18 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers: HOME
Statement of Issue

The U.S. is not unique in considering immigration a difficult issue, but the vast immigrant numbers and constant upheaval due to immigration are defining characteristics of the US. Everyone on the continents of North and South America is an immigrant. While the struggles of the early immigrants may still be unclear, the more recent history of the U.S. has been marred by the forced displacement of Africans along with a flagrant disregard for their well-being. The same goes for Native Americans where “a flagrant disregard for their lives” would be an embarrassing understatement. The issue as it stands today is in a less immoral position, but it is still tainted by racial divides.

There have been two great waves of immigration in the U.S. One which peaked in the 1920s, and the one that is happening today. Until 1965, the U.S. focused on family reunification as the primary reason for legal entry. After 1965, the U.S. set up a quota system for different countries allowing a wider range of peoples to legally reside in the country. In 1976, Asians began to dominate the legal immigrant population previously dominated by Europeans.

Perhaps the greatest cause of uncertainty in the issue is the influx of illegal immigrants each year, about 275,000 according to reports from 1996 and almost half a million according to more recent reports making a grand total of 11.6 million foreign-born residents as of 2006. Many studies show that immigrants, legal and illegal, contribute to the economy more than anything else. Immigrants may sometimes add stress to the social services and public schools, but they also fill jobs that most Americans do not care to do. While a certain demographic is affected in their jobs, the demographic is mainly young men without high school diplomas of any race. The immigrants lower the wage of this demographic, but they also lower the cost at the supermarket and other retail locations. Studies do not show that anyone is losing jobs because of immigrants except for native born Hispanics. They are often not hired by people wishing to avoid the illegal immigrant stigma.

Immigrants also help maintain population growth for America whereas most industrialized nations are experiencing population decline. Immigrants usually do not have health insurance and require other social services which cost money. Many immigrants have entered or stayed in the country illegally which is a violation of the law. As a result, immigration is a particularly difficult problem to solve because the country cannot enjoy the economic benefits of immigration without paying some of the social costs and the country cannot “solve” the problem of illegal immigrants without increasing the cost of goods and services in the country.

Right now, both presidential candidates support similar plans on immigration—securing the borders, addressing the illegal immigrants through some form of amnesty, enforcing the laws which prohibit employers hiring illegal immigrants, and fixing the lagging immigration system to keep families together and keep workers available for hire. Perhaps, the major difference is Obama's desire to promote economic development in Mexico. McCain does not support this officially, but he supports NAFTA and other free-trade agreements which may create jobs in Mexico and other Central and South American countries.

No matter who is elected president, according to a study by Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Academy of Sciences in 1997, both the non-European immigrant population and the average age of the US population will rise dramatically regardless of the immigration policies taken. While the CBSSE's study is 11 years old, little has changed in these two aspects.

The immigration issue pages have been populated by Dennis D. Draeger with a generous amount of supervision by his professor Dr. Peter Bishop. Please feel free to view his account profile here: http://thefuturesoftheus.wetpaint.com/account/DennisDD. You may message him through it or just e-mail him at dshusaku@yahoo.com.

Things to Know about Climate

realfut — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:40:14 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

A. Quantities

The total mass of atmospheric CO2 is approximately 3,000 gigatonnes. In the year 2004, the amount of CO2 released only by burning fossil fuels was 27 gigatonnes, not taking into account deforestation and other man-made sources. On the whole, anthropogenic sources of CO2 are not even 5% of the total emitted by the natural systems on Earth, but all of those natural systems have a corresponding way of reabsorbing what is produced. However, man-made CO2 does not have such a corresponding sink for CO2, so it is gradually increasing the concentration in the atmosphere.

A methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years).

The "natural" level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the thousand years before humans started burning fossil fuels was approximately 280 ppm (parts per million).

Since then, carbon dioxide levels have been rising at a steady rate. In 1960, for instance, the CO2 level was 313 ppm and now it's at 384 ppm (2007).

There are many things that we don't know about how the climate will react to a continuing rise in greenhouse gas levels. Even if greenhouse gas levels stop going up, we don't know how long, if at all, it will take for the temperature to stop rising because the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere continue to warm the planet year after year for hundreds of years.

The IPCC's best estimate as of 2007 on how much temperatures would rise in the 21st century is between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius (3.2* - 7.2* F).

Over the past 55 million years, the climate has gone from the hottest period since the extinction of the dinosaurs to the coldest. Beginning with CO2 levels at 3800ppm (ten times the current concentration), there was a sharp drop to 600, followed by a period of high fluctuation, which eventually settled into a gradual cooling trend. The culmination of this trend was three million years ago, when the first in a series of glacial expansions occurred in cycles, and has continued until 10,000 years ago, when the last glacial period ended. See Attachment at bottom of page (Climate Change Lite.ppt) for a history of CO2 levels.

The melting of the polar ice caps could accelerate global warming as Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic Ocean will absorb more heat if they are dark ground or water rather than white ice.

Warmer oceans might also amplify climate change. Cold water holds more dissolved gases than warm water. As the oceans warm up, they will absorb less CO2 and release more of the existing dissolved CO2, increasing the greenhouse effect, causing water temperatures to rise further.

On the other hand, there is also a possibility that higher levels of CO2 will increase plant growth, causing more CO2 to be pulled out of the air, and helping to slow the greenhouse effect. (There is considerable scientific disagreement about whether this will occur and how large its effect will be, since an increase in plant growth also depends on less predictable factors like shifting rainfall patterns and changes in agriculture.)

An estimation of how much the temperature will rise, given that CO2 stabilizes at a certain level of ppm given by the six colored bands in which CO2 stabilizes at different levels over time.

The distribution of greenhouse gases and their sources. Note that there are 14 greenhouse gases, but these three make up 99% of the total output.

A history of the previous Ice Age temperatures. These cycles are due to subtle changes in the Earth's orbit.

Taken from the 2007 IPCC report, these graphs show what the IPCC believes is required to reach a specific equilibrium GHG level (on the left, in Gigatonnes of CO2 per year) and what the corresponding temperature change will be (on the right)

.
From the 2007 IPCC report, displaying the behavior of GHG emissions (left) and temperature change over the next century.

A collection of possible future CO2 equilibrium levels and their possible temperature changes.

B. Structures – laws, regulations, arrangements

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html-- A list of US EPA climate policies and potential actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_United_States -- A useful summary of the history and current legal system concerning environmental action in the US.

C. Stakeholders (individuals, organizations, interest groups)

Producers of fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, and coal): While they have no problem with sequestration other than its cost, and they are actively looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they would rather not lose money by reducing their use and selling less to consumers.

Producers of other energy (hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, other non-carbon renewables): High increases in the value of these systems will occur if the government acts to reduce CO2 emitting processes.

Farmers and ranchers: Changes in temperatures, wind, and rainfall can strongly alter the profitability of farming or raising animals.

Consumers: Government action, such as emission regulations, energy use, taxes, or subsidies, will affect the economy because of how dependent our economic system is on fossil fuels.

Homeowners in coastal and other low-lying areas: Rising sea levels could cause massive property damage, and weather patterns could worsen, causing a higher likelihood of hurricanes striking coastal settlements.

The Candidates on Healthcare

realfut — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:02:33 CDT

Tips 4 Teachers

Google's keyword search Hear the Candidate speak: Enter "health care." Select Obama or Biden.

On The Issues.org Choose "Issues" from the top tab.

From the newsletter of the National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship
The Presidential Candidates on Health Care
The Urban Institute continues to elucidate where John McCain and Barack Obama stand on critical public policy issues. Their latest work is on health care—always an issue of concern for entrepreneurs. Their philosophies and positions on health care differ in numerous ways. Obama’s plan focuses on covering the uninsured through a new National Health Insurance Exchange (NHIE) that would, among other things, extend eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Obama’s plan would also require that employers automatically enroll all employees in company health plans. He would allow workers to opt out, but this move still changes current rules where employees must choose to opt-in to employer-based plans. McCain’s plan relies on tax credits as the primary vehicle to encourage wider health care coverage. When compared to current incentives, McCain’s plan is more favorable to lower income individuals, but Urban Institute researchers still believe that affordability will still be a major concern under McCain’s approach. McCain hopes that these incentives will help deregulate the health insurance market, and thus contribute to wider consumer choice and lower overall costs.

View the September 2008 Urban Institute reports, “An Analysis of the Obama Health Care Proposal,” and “An Analysis of the McCain Health Care Proposal,” by John Holahan and Linda J. Blumberg.

Obama on Healthcare

Obama on Health Care (from candidate's Web site)
Video (A) Campaign
Video (B) Meeting with Orlando Sun-Sentinel

Guaranteed health care for anyone who needs it
I'll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We'll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we're not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we're going to do it by the end of my first term as President.
Source: McCain-Obama speeches at 99th NAACP Convention Jul 12, 2008

The problem with health care is about affordability
The problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can't afford it. My plan emphasizes lowering costs, not only setting up a government plan so that people who don't have health insurance can buy into it and will get subsidized, but also making sure that those who have health insurance but are struggling with rising co-payments, deductibles, premiums. Under Bush, families are paying 78% more on health care than they were previously. We put in a catastrophic re-insurance plan that will help reduce those premiums for families by an average of about $2,500 per year. Every expert that's looked at this has said there is not a single person out there who's going to want health care who will not get it under my plan. My plan also says children will be able to stay on the parents' plan up until the age of 25. Both Edwards and Hillary have a hardship exemption, where, if people can't afford to buy health care, you exempt them, so that you don't count them.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Subsidies to people who can't afford care -- not single payer
If, in fact, we are not making healthcare affordable enough, which is what's happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can't afford and if they don't buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them. What is happening in Massachusetts right now, which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don't have health care. They'd rather go ahead and take the fine because they can't afford the coverage. My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that's available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Reforms in prevention and drug price negotiation save money
I emphasize how important prevention & cost savings can be in the Medicare system. Many of the reforms in my healthcare plan will reduce costs not just for the overall system, but also for Medicare. We're not going to make some of these changes unless we change how business is done in Washington. The reason we can't negotiate prescription drugs under the Medicare prescription drug plan is because the drug companies specifically sought and obtained a provision in the Bill that prevented us from doing it.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate Dec 13, 2007

Tackle insurance companies on reimbursement system
We need to deal with the insurance companies. On Medicare and Medicaid, the reimbursement system is not working the way it should. Instituting a universal health-care system that emphasizes prevention will free up dollars that potentially then can go to reimbursing doctors a little bit more.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Take on insurance companies; drive down health care costs
My emphasis is on driving down the costs, taking on the insurance companies, making sure that they are limited in the ability to extract profits and deny coverage, and the drug companies have to do what's right by their patients instead of simply hoarding their profits. We've got very conservative, credible estimates that say we can save families that do have health insurance about a thousand dollars a year, and we provide coverage for everybody else. We provide mandatory health care for children
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting
Q: Currently there are major disparities in both access to insurance and health care for racial and minorities. How will your plan address this issue?
A: One of the biggest reasons that there are disparities is that African-Americans & Latino Americans are much more likely not to have health insurance. And so if we set up a system in which everybody's got health insurance, some of those disparities are immediately going to be reduced. Folks who are working but don't have health care benefits- those groups are disproportionately minority. [Covering them via their employer] would be the first step. There are some particular issues within the minority community that I think we can address in a targeted way. Lead paint may seem like an ancillary issue except for the fact that incidence of lead poisoning among African-American & Latino youths is sky high. It has huge ramifications in terms of their long-term health. Obesity and diabetes in minority communities is more severe.
Source: SEIU Democratic Health Care Forum in Las Vegas Mar 24, 2007

Barack Obabma's Health Care Voting Record

No need to mandate coverage; just let people afford it. (Jul 2007)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES to increase funding for AIDS treatment & prevention. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES on more funding for Rx benefits, community health, CHIPs. (Jan 2001)
Voted YES to improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES to preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)

McCain on U.S. Health Care

McCain on Health Care (from candidate's Web site)
Video: John McCain on Health Care
Video: Interview with Charlie Rose (8/27/2007)

Harness market competition for comprehensive reform
Comprehensive Health Care Reform: John McCain believes health care reform should address the rising costs that threaten families' budgets, business competitiveness, and government programs by making the entire system responsive to the needs of American families. Families should receive quality, accountable care at lower costs by harnessing market competition.
Source: Campaign plan: "Bold Solutions for Economic Prosperity" Feb 3, 2008

Preserve quality of health care by individual responsibility
Q: What would you do to curb the high cost of medical health care & to help those who don't have health insurance?
A: The real question is: How are we going to keep health care costs down, because we have the highest quality of health care in the world in America today? And unlike the Democrats, I'm going to preserve that quality of health care, and at the same time stop the inflation & the skyrocketing costs of health care. And there's a couple of principles:
To make the recipient of the health insurance much more responsible in health-care costs.
To address wellness & fitness.
To give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go anyplace in America to acquire the health insurance policy that best suits their needs.
And, if they've got money left over, then invest it in a health savings account.
Ronald Reagan said nobody ever washed a rental car. And that's true in health insurance. If they're responsible for it, then they will take more care of it.
Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

Give individuals $2,500 refundable tax credits for health care
Q: Your plan for lowering health care costs involves switching people from employer-provided health care to policies they buy on their own. There's concern that could lead insurance companies to cherry-pick their clients. You also want to limit the amount doctors can charge for chronic diseases, which skeptics worry could make it difficult for people with diabetes, for example, to find doctors to take care of them. How would you deal with these two problems?
A: Last year, the Medicaid inflation was 10%. No program in the world can survive under that. So of course we want to remove the employer tax, and tax incentives, and move it to the individual. Give the individual a $2,500 refundable tax credit, a family a $5,000 tax credit. If you need to have people in special categories such as congenital diseases, we may have to set up a fund to care for those. But the key is, make health care in America affordable and available. Don't destroy it, as the Democrats want to do.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

Control health costs so manufacturers stay competitive
Q: Pres. Bush said that GM & Ford need to produce a product that's relevant rather than looking to Washington for help. Do you agree?
A: I agree with that, but I think we in Washington have an absolute requirement to bring health care costs down. The differential between Toyota and General Motors [due to health care costs affects each cars' cost by] $1,700. It's our responsibility to stop the cost aspects of health care, which is endangering the profitability and the competitiveness of our Detroit workers. So of course they have to do it on their own. But it is our job to create a climate where we have both a safe and secure Social Security system but also health care costs under control so that they can be competitive with foreign products. By the way, there are automobile manufacturers moving in the southern part of this country, as you know, that are doing very well because American workers are the most productive in the world.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

No mandated universal system; no mandated insurance coverage
McCain says he thinks affordable health care can be made available to all Americans without a mandated universal system. McCain said that he doesn't think government-run systems such as those in Canada and in Europe will succeed in the US. "I think it's a warmed-over proposal that we rejected back in the early 1990s and I'm certainly not interested in raising people's taxes," McCain said, adding he also is opposed to requiring everyone to buy health insurance coverage. "We've got to make health care affordable and available. There's plenty of ways to do that."
He said he's been working on a plan "for a long time" but "it's a very tough issue." One way, he said, would be to expand community health centers and the S-CHIP program, offer tax incentives for poor people, put health care online, medical malpractice reform and promote health savings accounts. However, he said, one problem getting everyone covered "is there's a lot of healthy Americans that say I just don't want health insurance.
Source: United Press International, "McCain sees room" Jun 10, 2006

Include a health savings account in health care reform
There's a choice of having outcome-based treatment. If someone has diabetes, we should give the health care provider a certain amount of money and say, "Care for that patient. If at the end of that period that patient is well, we'll give you a reward." We need walk-in clinics, community health care, and incentives for home health care. In Arizona, we adopted a proposal which incentivizes health care providers to keep people in home health care settings--dramatically less expensive than long-term care.
Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

Supports tax-free medical savings accounts & tax credits
McCain supports the following principles regarding healthcare:
A Patient's Bill of Rights, including appeal mechanisms when claims are denied, & the right to sue when claims are denied.
Expanded eligibility for tax-free medical savings accounts
In favor of limits on the amount of punitive damages awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits.
Expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
Tax credits to individuals and small businesses to offset the cost of insurance coverage.
Source: National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) Nov 7, 2004

John McCain's Health Care Voting Record

Allow appealing HMO decisions externally & in court. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on blocking medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on tax credits for those without employee health insurance. (May 2002)
Voted YES on tax deduction for long-term care insurance. (May 2002)
Voted YES in support telemedicine for underserved areas. (May 2002)
Voted YES on $350 billion for prescriptions for poor seniors. (May 2002)
Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)