What’s Worse: More War or More Healthcare?
I was a kid when Desert Storm began. My older brother was in the Army and stationed in Germany at the time. There was a possibility that he was going to be deployed to the theater (Iraq, not Regal Cinemas). So we were concerned, but at the same time, I really liked watching CNN’s reports from Baghdad and so I was a bit hopeful that he’d go and bring back some good stories. The TV, as you remember, aired those iconic laser-like bursts of green shooting at different angles into the night sky, and it all became a genuine thrill for me. I had begun not only to smile at war, but to quietly like it more than any Christian was supposed to admit. The fact that people were dying on both sides was of little concern; what was far more important to me was the fact that I was entertained.
I worry that something similar has happened to a big percentage of adults in this country, but for the sake of length let’s put aside all the worst case scenarios about the American reaction to war, and just agree that our population is largely indifferent to the two campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope to talk about the reasons why in another post.
So what about healthcare? I’ll go first. I had always believed (because I was often told) that people should be responsible for their own health (which included paying for their own healthcare), and that the government ought to stay out of the way. I grew up hearing doom and gloom about what would happen to our country if the government were paying everyone’s medical bills. Some of that still resonates with me a bit. Yes, in a utopian society (where everyone who wants to work is employed, earning a livable wage and with access to affordable healthcare free from bloat and corporatism), Good Ol’ Fashioned, Freedom-Loving Private Healthcare would be great. Now find me that nation. I like the principles of personal responsibility and of smaller government, but these days I don’t like my principles more than human life or wellbeing. Quite a lot of people are dying prematurely or living deficient lives because they don’t have access to health care. It would be simplistic and judgemental of me to call all of those without healthcare lazy, obese freeloaders. But that’s a popular notion these days.
The reason for the war vs. healthcare comparison is that the U.S. can’t afford both. It is true that we have over 60 Trillion (yes- $60,000,000,000,000) dollars in debt commitments already (obligations spread out over the near future) and 11 trillion in current federal debt. I could bore us all with statistics but let’s just agree that we can’t give 40- 60 percent of the federal budget to military adventurism and expect to take care of the other essentials at home. That is a serious problem not only today but for our future (cue the worn-out phrases about our children’s children.)
Nationalism and greed are now running around naked and proud. When we’re led into one unnecessary war, or caught for too long in a different once-understandable war that has deteriorated and become about saving face, and the costs are severe and longterm, many respond with a shrug or a salute. But when there’s a sense that taxes will go up just a bit to help level the playing field so that every person can have access to health care, some of these same people take to the streets in protest and spew all kinds of vicious ugliness in the process. My heart aches to see my country becoming more fanatical, and fanatical about the wrong things. Compassion gets dismissed as weakness while stubborn militarism is praised as honorable and pure. Ron Paul makes a good point- why are we taxpayers so comfortable with our dollars being spent to bomb bridges in distant lands and to pay to rebuild those bridges while our infrastructure at home crumbles? If we’re going to have a government that spends unfathomable amounts of money (which isn’t my desire, but both leading parties are doing it regardless), then I’d rather they use it to increase the quality of life and preserve life for people here rather than decrease the quality and the number of lives of people on the other side of an ocean. I am simplifying yet again for the sake of space, so I’ll just say that there was a reason our founding fathers did not want us meddling in elective foreign conflict. Is anyone really prepared to argue that vaguely defined, endless combat is better than healthcare for everyone?
Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 8:48 am
I also have wondered why we, as a nation, are so torn over the choice to spend money in war versus on our own national health. Unfortunately, some people have chosen to defend private industry (insurance companies) over their own self interest. We can be so obstinately misguided as a nation and still defend it as patriotism/loyalty.
I, for one, am against the presently proposed healthcare bill, but for very different reasons than most of the opposition you see on the talking head shows. I detest the idea that every citizen will be forced to pay a small group of PRIVATE FOR PROFIT insurance companies MORE money for sub-par healthcare. So people are more comfortable paying wealthy companies more money from the public coffers (essentially) rather than having the public pay themselves?? I also expect that the bill will change before it finally gets voted on and passed, but I have a feeling that basic structure will still be part of it. (And yes, I understand we all are required to pay car insurance by law as well, but you can choose NOT to have a car — as many do in places like San Francisco or New York — but you cannot choose to not have a body or get ill! Plus, how dare we compare our bodies and health to cars and mechanical repairs…are we not more than cogs in wheels of industry?)
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 12:02 pm
In an “either/ or” argument, I can see your point, Ian. Personally, I say “Stop both”, but I don’t expect the politicians to hear that. I voted for neither party last year as I am sick and tired of “politics as usual”. I wish more Americans would wake up and start taking action by voting in 3rd party candidates, but alas, I don’t expect anybody to hear that either. “We get what we deserve” when we refuse to make hard choices.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Okay, this is one of those articles that I feel hideously inadequate to comment on. That being said, I really did enjoy reading it and feel more educated/informed for doing so. Thank you.
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
Good comments to think on, Bri.
JB- I completely share your frustration with politics as usual. We are way overdue for sincere reform although I have to be fair and credit Obama with a few important changes even while I voted third party as you did. ““We get what we deserve” when we refuse to make hard choices.” Too true. And I’m with you about third party voting. Some people I respect say “choose the better of two candidates” but that allows the leading two parties to be largely the same with often trivial differences. The choice between bad and worse is not a healthy, sustainable option.
Tiffany- hey thanks! looking forward to your next one.
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The choice’s facing our nation’s leader’s are not just about money but ultimately about control. I don’t believe for a minute that the government takeover of healthcare is to primarily rescue all the multitudes who are helplessly dying all around us and can’t help themselves. I do believe that the healthcare takeover is just one more example of how the current government wants us eating out of their hands. That is their goal.
My husband, a mortgage loan officer, just got an important bulletin this morning, regarding yet another way in which the government wants to “help” the public. It stated that the Federal Reserve is now thinking of applying even more stringent rules governing how much loan officers can make on what is called a “yield spread”. If this passes, most loan officer’s will have to quit their line of work. How is this helping the economy? It wouldn’t save the public money however it would line the pocket’s of the bank’s which are now..you guessed it, government controlled. It’s all part of a plan, and I agree with what JB said–”I wish more American’s would wake up” before it’s too late and the government finally has us right where they want us–thinking we can’t do anything without them!
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm
No, ma’am. What unlimited commissions on loans do is to drive up the cost of housing for everybody else, and pad the pockets of you and your husband. It is clear from your post that you are only concerned about your own well-being, and have no ability to see that what you and your husband do does have an effect on everyone else. What you call the “gov’t. take-over of health care” is actually just a little drop in the cup of beginning to spread the wealth and benefits in this country to those who helped build it and earn it, but were never, and still are not, fairly compensated for their contributions. Wage earners make it possible for corporations to be and stay in business, and they deserve to be compensated proportionally to their contributions, which are great and essential, rather than a fraction of a percentage of what the CEO who came and will leave by the revolving door contributes (which is largely to invite his friends to siphon off as much money for themselves and him as possible before they head out the door again, leaving countless wage-earners with no company to work for.)
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 11:15 am
Barb- even if the government’s motive is impure, does that negate the benefit of what it offers to the people (in this case healthcare)?
Financial regulations are a sticky subject for me. It is true that deregulation played a huge role in getting us into this mess in the first place, and yet at the same time I don’t want or believe that a government should flood the market with over-regulation as a response. I leave it up to economists to find and advocate for the balance between a reckless market and over-regulation.
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Must correct you: De-regulation got us into this mess. Uncontrolled capitalism is every bit as evil and destructive as any other uncontrolled ideology. If there had been any regulation, Enron employees could not have been robbed of their pensions, and the more recent collapse of our financial system could not have happened, because there would have been barriers to the widespread frauds that were (and still are being) perpetrated in the housing, stock trading, banking, and other financial markets.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 3:46 pm
This was a great read bro!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Kurt! Dude I love that you scoured back a bit and found this. Thanks for reading it and for the encouragement- I have a high regard for your perspective.
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Commented a bit more and shared it… it showed up on your wall I think so I followed the link. Its relevant in my opinion to the budget issues we now face.
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Ian… you NAILED IT! This is huge. Our cutting of militarism is the key to getting out of debt. For a great video on this, go here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/03/10/why-both-sides-of-the-political-aisle-stink-at-balancing-the-budget/
And on healthcare… well this hits close to home. My mom has struggled to get the care she needs to be able to be healthy enough to “pick herself up by the bootstraps” as conservatives would desire. A girl in my small group has bills that she may never recover from becasue she got sick with no insurance and had to have surgery. Another friend filed for bankruptcy for similar reasons. Good conservative folks need to wake up to the difficult situation many lower middle class young adults face. I wrote about this last year in a post titled “When Healthcare Reform has a Face and a Name” ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2010/08/30/when-healthcare-reform-has-a-face-and-a-name/ ) Thanks Ian for this great post!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 7:18 pm
sorry to hear about your mom kurt. great comment though. you are right on.
Monday, August 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Being an old-style idealist (or maybe I’m just old) I am endlessly puzzled by what many Americans find amusing — as you mention, you found the video reports of war entertaining — while I am horrified by the same things; and I am continually confounded when I hear or read folks defend any position that would deny reasonable and appropriate health care (or food, or shelter, or clothing) to anyone who finds themselves in need.
At the risk of offending almost everybody, I must say that while people may have been muddled in their thinking for most of history, today we have virtually no excuse for continued self-delusion. We can see homeless, disabled people struggling, sleeping on the streets, begging at the intersections of streets and major highways. The problem is right in front of us, staring us in the face, and the circumstances that push some people to such desperate measures as panhandling and living in cardboard boxes are the very same ones that could face all but the wealthiest, given a sudden and prolonged job loss, a diagnosis of a disabling chronic illness or devastating car crash that will not end our lives, but simply make it impossible for us to work to support ourselves or to meet our most basic needs. Every single one of us is vulnerable to these types of losses. To feel no mercy for those who are suffering, including the children of people who are suffering such devastation, is to be so blind and self-centered as if one had no ability to think at all.
We, as humans, are here for some reason, and if we ignore that reason, we may eventually find ourselves being spat upon and insulted and shoved aside by people who think just like we do. And if we choose to continue with our empty, selfish, self-soothing pattern, we deserve to suffer as do the poorest of the poor — who we in our selfishness caused to suffer.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Amen Laura.