Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Of Health Care, War, Costs and Consequences
The ways Americans analyze these two policy issues are incongruous.
In the next few weeks this country will make two decisions of great consequence: Will we send additional troops to Afghanistan? Will we reform our health care system?
It is both instructive and disheartening to see the different ways our policymakers approach these issues.
When it comes to health care, the emphasis is on costs. When President Obama introduced his health care reform initiative, he justified it as a way to lower health care costs and help the economy. Later he pledged to a joint session of Congress, "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. Period."
A few days ago the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave health reform a green light when it concluded that the Senate bill wouldn't add to the deficit. The $800 billion additional cost would be offset, in large part by cutting spending in another part of the health care sector -- Medicare.
When it comes to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, on the other hand, talk of costs and deficits disappears. When Obama sent an additional 21,000 to Afghanistan earlier this year, neither party discussed the cost. A few days ago the Senate voted 93-7 to fund those additional troops, bringing to $1 trillion the amount we've spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. No member of either party talked about costs. The CBO was not asked to analyze the impact on the deficit of sending additional troops. And unlike with health care reform, the Pentagon was not required to offset the increased costs of the Afghanistan war by cutting spending in other parts of the military budget.
Why do we approach these two crucial issues so differently? Some would say the answer is obvious: War is a matter of national security. It certainly is. We need to defend ourselves against our enemies. But if protecting American lives is the objective, the absence of health care undermines our national security far more than terrorism.
In the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 2,800 died. According to a study recently published by the American Journal of Public Health, that is the number of Americans who die every three weeks because of lack of access to health care. Since we intervened in Iraq, about 300,000 Americans have died from lack of health care, about the number of American soldiers killed in World War II.
Indeed, the national insecurity resulting from our actual lack of health care is far greater than the number who die from it. Tens of millions of Americans worry about losing their health insurance, or having their insurance company deny their medical claims. Medical expenses significantly contribute to about 50 percent of personal bankruptcies. In about 30 percent they are the primary factor.
We will never achieve real, effective and universal health care until we treat the lack of it as a national security issue. Perhaps we could start by adopting some of the language used to justify war. If Obama chooses to maintain or reduce current troop levels, his opponents will undoubtedly criticize him for adopting a policy of "cut and run."
Consider that the Senate health care bill will still leave 25 million uninsured. By one estimate, that translates into 25,000 avoidable deaths annually. Why then aren't we saying that when it comes to saving American lives, the Senate has adopted a policy of "cut and run"?
Health care is a national security issue. Our policymakers need to approach it that way.
- Posted in
18 Comments so far
Show AllWhile this article may be a few years behind the curve for CD regulars, it's still gratifying to see a major regional daily taking up the cudgel.
Yes, absolutely, let's keep reminding our elected non-representatives that cost must be a factor in ALL decison making, not just when they find it useful in beating down proposals that might "promote the general welfare."
The corporations that own the electeds in DC are scripting a third world playbook for Obama to promote and Congress to execute...beat the working class down, tranfer all of their wealth to the top 1%. Its better than slavery cause you don't have to feed or shelter beaten down people, just keep bleeding them.
It happened in the 1960s and this time it will be worse. When LBJ and his Congress funded the Vietnam War, funding for all domestic programs including Medicare were limited. This time will be worse. We are likely to watch our Congress and White House helplessly add more funding for the wars. Healthcare will not be funded no matter what bill comes out. Obama will pretend that health care is being properly funded by trying to take money away from Medicare and Medicaid. It is possible that Obama will also gut the VA which his predecessor started doing. My nephew's death in Afghanistan a few years ago and his experience in the modern military has already told me everything I needed to know. Even as Congress and the White House will increase the military spending, the spending will be redirected more towards the mercenaries at the expense of limiting pay for the US soldiers themselves. The military spending does not go towards training or getting the young and tender out of PTSD should they be alive to return. It is still not too late to end the war spending and revert to health care for all spending. I'm going back to the phone and calling both my representative and two US senators, Republican or Democrat.
Re JWVerez October 12th, 2009 1:14 pm
Good observations. I'm not convinced, however, that LBJ's policies were intended to have that effect; but subsequent presidents, especially Raygun, took the lesson to heart and used "national security" as the key to gutting programs they were ideologically opposed to.
"See, we were so worried about that evil Maurice Bishop down in Grenada, and those evil Sandinistas down in Nicaragua, that we just had to pull the plug on Granny's SSI to pay for all those lovely Peacekeeper missles and Star Wars prototypes."
Back in the 1960s, the deficits were there but not so enormous. LBJ wasn't quite as bad about his spending habits but when I look back on the day he chose not to run for a second term, I guess that LBJ knew that even if he were to win a second term by some miracle, he would be forced to make a choice between increased defense spending vs cutting back and withdrawing. Too bad we had to wait for Nixon to complete his first term to get over to withdrawing. Gravel might have been faster at reining in the Pentagon. You're right about Reagan. He was a rightwing a---ole who went full throttle on increasing defense spending and crippling the domestic economy. He made LBJ look like a saint.
Sioux Rose
JWVEREZ: As the adage goes, "The enlightened warrior (which is you) best understands the benefits of peace." Thank you for sharing how your personal ordeal shifted your orientation towards war and militarism.
There is never a question of what to spend on the delusion of defense in a Mars-rules (hello, same MIC Ike warned about) nation. The more a society invests in war and armaments, the less it has for the things that matter, that is, things that actually build up that society and support the welfare and interests of its people. I would refer to that approach as the CARING society, as opposed to the one we have, a CARELESS society. It's a simple cosmic, as well as mathematical equation, and one that Martin Luther King also understood by his stating that a nation that invested mostly in war and armaments approached spiritual bankruptcy. We have not only approached, but surpassed that "goal."
What's also at work are the same shock doctrine approaches that worked so "well" in South America, South Africa, Poland, and Russia. Pursue war or neoliberal trade policies that lead to empty treasuries, and then stick it to the everyday population to not only pick up the tab (hello, bankers, how are you doing on those plush yachts on this sunny Monday?), but be PUNISHED by and through a reduction across the board in social programs, adding a boot to the neck of the neediest. What a way to run a country...or world!
Sioux, I've learned a lot of lessons no doubt but when I look back at my nephew's death and everything that led up to it and an ongoing family crisis in my neighborhood which I will discuss shortly, I don't know if the lessons I learned mean anything when my own flesh and blood or even the best educated neighbors refuse to sit down and talk before jumping into war and face higher risks of losing one's life. Examining the military up close, I would say that the MIC has not only learned a lot of the lessons we have learned but they have found strategies to negate those lessons learned. They have and continue to try to make sure certain lessons are not learned and that newer tricks can be thrown at people to convince them to look at those lessons learned as "wrong" lessons learned. Their skills at framing and reframing make George Lakoff's look like child's play but I believe Lakoff and other progressive minded folks like him are trying to catch up. I don't know if I will live to see the day when the public will be smart enough to resist wars to stop them from happening. One thing is for certain. Regardless of what they do, we cannot afford to give up stop them at their tracks. The military will misuse their given funding to train recruits to talk against their own loving parents, spouses, friends, etc ... who stand for peace and don't want them to risk their lives. As JB and RichM would say "They got spine but they'll misuse it".
Speaking of wars and trying to get people out of carelessness and back into caring, we have another crisis in our neighborhood. A young married couple who gave birth to a son and a daughter a few months ago are in a serious family crisis. The man has been trying to find another job because his current contract is due to expire by December but is getting worried that the only way the couple can pay is by signing up. A recruiter has tempted him with a very suspicious looking offer. He has been leaning more towards that but his wife threatened to divorce him if he joined so every evening we hear fighting and screaming, one of us has to go down there to counsel the two. I cannot imagine what the children are going through right now. It will be even worse if the father is missing while the mother is put through all the stress work of having to care for them. What's worse is that he may not make it back and even if he does, he will not be the same loving father that he could be if he wouldn't join. He is frustrated that there are no jobs for him nearby and that he and his family have to move to the big cities where everything is expensive and he would miss everything here. He thinks joining the military would increase his odds of making him rich enough to fly out of misery. Joining my neighbors in trying to ease his tensions has been time consuming but we aren't giving up. One thing we are trying to do is help him overcome his anxiety about lower pay and that they are temporary. We are also trying to negotiate with the woman to also find a job in her profession to make up for the pay deficit and try to ease the tension on job insecurity. Some of our retired neighbors will be happy to take care of the children while both are at work. We're all chipping in and trying to find ways to help him ease his tension on monthly payments as well. We that there is a 45% chance he won't go so we still have a lot of work to be done to pull out of his temptation to accept a criminal offer from the military.
I know the banks have a lot to do with those crooked military deals too and I wouldn't be surprised to see all that bailout money being used for such purposes. I'll bet the banks are doing similar things in other nations in addition to what you mentioned. Speaking of neoliberal trade policies, that's another topic that rarely gets covered or discussed even here. Hugo Chavez is a remarkable leader trying to clamp down on them and his refusal of free trade pacts shows his true respect he has for his own country and others. I could care less about Hugo's flaws on relying on oil revenue to repair the damage done to his own nation by former rightwing regimes. He'll find other means if by any chance the oil does run out.
Nice to see you again and I read all those posts on the Nobel Peace Prize. That's a lot of posts but I'm glad everyone is keeping doing their part to enlighten others. Take care.
Dear JWVerez, Many thanks for your excellent posts here, and for the great things you and your neighbors are doing to help that young family through this time of crisis for them. A thousand blessings on you all!!!!!
Ditto to JWV.
One thing to add though is that what JWV is witnessing is a structural problem. See my separate post on this matter. There is a lot to learn about this.
Incongruous? Sure, but I think corrupt and hypocritical is more like it. The contempt these legislators have for the American public is mind boggling.
My hat is off to this writer for having the proper perception about government spending and the true meaning of national security.
It would be great if we could have a democracy in the USA.
You wanna tell us how easy it is to untie military from our entire way of life? I guarantee you it ain't easy.
reminded of Gandhi's response to the notion of western civilization - oh yes, it would be a wonderful idea.
"Why then aren't we saying that when it comes to saving American lives, the Senate has adopted a policy of "cut and run"?"
In a word, disenfranchisement. Those uninsured are usually not voters and are never campaign contributors.
Their lives are about as relevant as an Iraqi or Afghan to our politicians. Of course, if an Iraqi or Afghan caused some of those uninsured to die, then thousands of Iraqis or Afghans wouls also have to die.
Apart from Texas and and other execution-loving states, only the Corporate American Government God of Mammon is allowed to decide who lives and who dies.
"When President Obama introduced his health care reform initiative, he justified it as a way to lower health care costs and help the economy."
First, healthcare reform wasn't O'Bamba's initiative. He was driven by the threat of popular revolt, informed by far-left media.
Second, you don't help the economy by lowering costs. You help the people by lowering costs. The people want better value in the markets but they also want a bustling economy, hence slick willie offers them both, which is impossible, but they buy it, because as long as the petro-opiates flow, they can enjoy their delusions.
The correct course of action is to lower costs to help the people and damn the economy.
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. Period."
Blank checks for military defeat continue, adding trillions of dimes to our deficits.
Popular votes for military defeat continue, adding trillions of dimes to our deficits.
This masochism isn't inherent in the people, rather it was taught through elite media. It may be untaught.
Suggestion: Distrust, ignore and boycott the elites. Listen to your own common sense. And if you want the USA to be a "beacon of hope" in this world, leave the economy to its natural fate.
Great comment!!!! Well said!
Actually, what we will get is a compromise but this compromise will be nothing more than status quo. I have brought this up in the past and I feel the need to bring this up again. The truth is that just like a greater percentage of jobs are being tied to the war machine, so too is health care being tied to privilege and the types of jobs. Consider this. Unless you are a federal employee or working for a business giving tremendous health care benefits that is closer to single payer, chances are you are left out completely or at least partially. The smaller the business you work in, the less likely you are to get adequate coverage.
Let's pick up on JWVerez's example. The young couple is in a fight because the man figures that he will get benefits and feels that the military will bail him out. His wife on the other hand fears that he risks losing his life. That is a tough call. Millions of families across this nation are not fortunate enough One question to ask JWVerez is does this man like military spending because of the technical fact that without it, he feels that prosperity and single payer for him and his family are otherwise out of reach? This may explain why the fight is serious.
Another example would be myself and millions of others who out of fewer opportunities choose to work in controversial companies such as banks, insurance companies, utility companies, and companies related to various government departments. In my state of Virginia, military spending is what controls the economy at large and this is why the fastest growth remains in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. Similar could be said of states such as CA, TX, FL, NC, and other states. When I came to this site, I know I got into trouble when I said what I work for but now that it is resolved, I would like to further expand on this. I know someone will come in here and tell me to give up my job. I can say, sure but as soon as that happens, the next person looking for a job will fill it immediately so we're back to square one. It would take millions of people giving up their jobs together to influence the war machine by that strategy and even then the effect will only be temporary at best. It is like a fire fighter trying to put out the fires of a building that is being burned by volcanic lava from underneath the Earth's surface. Even if millions of gallons of water could be poured just in time to cool down the lava on the surface, the lava underneath will not stop but will head another direction until a bigger volcanic eruption in the city happens. The only solution would have been to have prepared the city infrastructure so that in cases like these a redirection path would be provided to control the flow and minimize the damage. Likewise, there will have to be long term planning on all levels of government. We cannot afford to ignore local and statewide elections.
Just today, when both the Deeds and Mcdonnell campaigns came knocking at my door, I did not hesitate to ask both campaigns what they plan to do on health care, transportation woes, mountaintop removal, jobs, and other economic and environmental issues. The folks from the Deeds campaign gave very few answers and then talked again too much about gender and minority issues even when I asked them about the economic issues. At the most, they would say that Deeds plans to keep jobs in Virginia. I would ask them exactly what kind of jobs and they would still say the same thing and give no answer. I asked them about what Deeds plans to do about the transportation woes and told them straight up that public transportation is lacking and that more people are getting to work stressed out due to excessive traffic jams both in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. They said that he has a plan but that its effects won't materialize until after Deeds leaves office which is absurd. They then try to change the subject to abortion and then I fire back and tell them that if a women gets pregnant on the highway and is stuck in traffic jams with the driver, what the hell will "abortion" solve ? They don't want to answer these simple questions.
The Mcdonnell campaign people were just as disgusting. Ask them about health care for all Virginians and they would say that people should be allowed to choose their own private health care providers. Try to ask them about the unemployed and those whose employers don't provide coverage and they complain about jobs being lost if VA government takes over. Ask them about fixing transportation woes and they argue about the need to cut back on public transportation as if it existed making up lies about that being the cause of state deficits. Their other solution is to make as much of I-64, I-95, and I-66 HOV only for rush hours and shove most of the traffic into the city and country roads as if that will solve anything other than stress more people out and increase health care costs.
I asked both these campaigns plenty more questions and most of it was related to the economy and health care at large. The result is all of us Virginians are already losers because Democrat or Republican, we will get the same irresponsible state government just like this entire nation gets the same kind of irresponsible national government. I would like to add that this is happening in most states even as we speak. I know I have said a lot and beyond this article but I want to make one thing clear. We will continue to lose on the fight for a better health care system and controlling military spending as long as we continue to fail to take on our politicians not only in Washington but also on our local and state levels. Of course health care is a national security issue but until we learn to realize that we cannot allow wars and privilege to dictate who gets the best health care and that we cannot afford to ignore our state and local politicians, we the people will be burned alive by the system as it stands.
To be expected when the lunatics are in charge of the asylum