Hawks in Congress Willing to Shell Out Trillions for War, but Won't Help Americans Get Decent Health-Care

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September.

So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

–

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

has called for providing the "resources [needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit." [

9/13/09

,

10/26/09

]

–

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

has complained that passing health care legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [

10/21/09

,

]

–

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [

11/10/09

,

8/27/09

]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/hawks_i...th-care/#143925

[Dan J 277]

by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September.

So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

–

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

has called for providing the "resources [needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit." [

9/13/09

,

10/26/09

]

–

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

has complained that passing health care legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [

10/21/09

,

]

–

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [

11/10/09

,

8/27/09

]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/hawks_i...th-care/#143925

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

Health care reform would remove some of the waste in the system, waste which right now mostly benefits shareholders.

[alienlovechild 75]

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

For starters, in this country, it's call the defense dept. not "defence" dept.

The private contractors emerged because there hasn't been a major increase in troop levels. You've got it backwards.

[Dan J 277]

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

For starters, in this country, it's call the defense dept. not "defence" dept.

The private contractors emerged because there hasn't been a major increase in troop levels. You've got it backwards.

I am not talking about just the contractors on the security side of things, I am talking about all defense contractors as a whole.

The reason why private contractors are used is largely a political one, there are no costs savings to using a guard from Xe (formerly Blackwater) instead of a regular solider. In some cases it can have a much higher diplomatic cost if the private contractor does play by the rules that bind regular soldiers. But the real reason for using private contractors is poltical convience. Reinstating the draft would have been politically impossible, especially when a war was put together for such shaky reasons as Iraq was.

[Kevin and 10]

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

For starters, in this country, it's call the defense dept. not "defence" dept.

The private contractors emerged because there hasn't been a major increase in troop levels. You've got it backwards.

I am not talking about just the contractors on the security side of things, I am talking about all defense contractors as a whole.

The reason why private contractors are used is largely a political one, there are no costs savings to using a guard from Xe (formerly Blackwater) instead of a regular solider. In some cases it can have a much higher diplomatic cost if the private contractor does play by the rules that bind regular soldiers. But the real reason for using private contractors is poltical convience. Reinstating the draft would have been politically impossible, especially when a war was put together for such shaky reasons as Iraq was.

Blackwater/Xe "Contractors" are unlawful combatants not bound by Geneva Convention laws. That makes them indispensable on the battlefield. They can get things done that GIs can't.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Kevin and Tuyen

[DEDixon 39]

still think gov't health care is the way to go, all joking aside (about ripping it off). i'm sincerely hoping health reform with the public option passes. it is the right thing to do. the current system is outdated.

off topic, but mandated time off would also be nice. with both parents working, people from all walks of life should have the opportunity to rest. it would greatly benefit our youth too. guess i should have said this on the say anything post.... oh well.

Edited November 13, 2009 by DEDixon

[one...two...tree 2,762]

still think gov't health care is the way to go, all joking aside (about ripping it off). i'm sincerely hoping health reform with the public option passes. it is the right thing to do. the current system is outdated.

off topic, but mandated time off would also be nice. with both parents working, people from all walks of life should have the opportunity to rest. it would greatly benefit our youth too. guess i should have said this on the say anything post.... oh well.

May I ask - do you have employee based health insurance or do you have to purchase your own policy?

[Dan J 277]

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

For starters, in this country, it's call the defense dept. not "defence" dept.

The private contractors emerged because there hasn't been a major increase in troop levels. You've got it backwards.

I am not talking about just the contractors on the security side of things, I am talking about all defense contractors as a whole.

The reason why private contractors are used is largely a political one, there are no costs savings to using a guard from Xe (formerly Blackwater) instead of a regular solider. In some cases it can have a much higher diplomatic cost if the private contractor does play by the rules that bind regular soldiers. But the real reason for using private contractors is poltical convience. Reinstating the draft would have been politically impossible, especially when a war was put together for such shaky reasons as Iraq was.

Blackwater/Xe "Contractors" are unlawful combatants not bound by Geneva Convention laws. That makes them indispensable on the battlefield. They can get things done that GIs can't.

Not sure I would consider that a good thing. They can now be held accountable by local laws, which for some places would probably be worse.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September.

So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

–

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

has called for providing the "resources [needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit." [

9/13/09

,

10/26/09

]

–

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

has complained that passing health care legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [

10/21/09

,

]

–

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [

11/10/09

,

8/27/09

]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/hawks_i...th-care/#143925

It is simple. It is congress' job to fund the military. It is not their job to fund health care. If we would stick to what congress should do we would all take home enough more money to pay for our own helath insurance. This is just such a tired old line used by anyone for anything. Really, at least think of something new.

[DEDixon 39]

x

still think gov't health care is the way to go, all joking aside (about ripping it off). i'm sincerely hoping health reform with the public option passes. it is the right thing to do. the current system is outdated.

off topic, but mandated time off would also be nice. with both parents working, people from all walks of life should have the opportunity to rest. it would greatly benefit our youth too. guess i should have said this on the say anything post.... oh well.

May I ask - do you have employee based health insurance or do you have to purchase your own policy?

i have employer based and it scares me. drugs that aren't on the preferred list doubled in cost for next year. monthly premium was outrageous last year and it went up this year.

btw, the dental insurance offered by my employer is completely useless.

what also should be apart of HC reform is tort reform. this is very important. there really should be limits to malpractice awards. for example, if a brick layer is harmed and it puts him out of work for 5 years, the reward shouldn't be 12 million dollars. the award should allow him and his family to live comfortably while he is unable to work, but not put them in a position to buy a house in the hollywood hills. if an executive is harmed then the award should be in line with his/her expenses/lifestyle. there is so much waste in getting unnecessary tests done just the protect against possible tort action. having said this, i know there is a million ways to go about this and i haven't any specific ideas but whatever they come up with would be better than it is today.

another thing, as grim and callous as it sounds, there should be a limit to what is spent on someone who is pretty much at the end of their life. again, there is a million ways to define the rules, but at some point, doctors should not be defying god, people should be told that spending 358,000 dollars to keep them alive for the next 6 months is ridiculous. 358,000 dollars to keep them alive for the next 6 months and then they need another 223,000 dollars of care to keep them going another 6 months. perhaps i feel this way, because i know that when i'm beyond 65 years old and say i'm unhealthy, another unhealthy year here on earth does me no good or anyone else. a friend of mine, her mother lived an extra 6 years with cancer, but it was 6 years of constant doctor's appts, not having fun while traveling the world, it was 6 years of stress on the entire family, but she was kept alive because the doctors could do it. if she lived nearly anywhere else in the world, god would have been allowed to take over. 50% of medicare's budget is spent on the last 6 months of recipients life. i've heard that in canada and GB there are limits, but i've never fact checked that claim.

Edited November 14, 2009 by DEDixon

[PhiLandShiR 18]

EXCUSE ME?!?!?!

Don't you see how totally wrong that statement is !?!?

The end, NEVER EVER justifies the means.

When it does, you are no better than Hitler.

-Phil

Blackwater/Xe "Contractors" are unlawful combatants not bound by Geneva Convention laws. That makes them indispensable on the battlefield. They can get things done that GIs can't.

[The_Dude 1,142]

by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress

In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

In his New York Times column today [ed: Thursday], columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is "fiscally irresponsible" while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:

The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.

So doesn't it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?

Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September.

So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?

Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:

–

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

has called for providing the "resources [needed]" for a "significant increase in U.S. forces" while warning that he is "really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit." [

9/13/09

,

10/26/09

]

–

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

has complained that passing health care legislation would "expand government spending even more," while also boasting of his Republican caucus's "broad support" for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [

10/21/09

,

]

–

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we "urgently need more resources" in Afghanistan, "including more combat troops," while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to "generational theft" that would run up "unconscionable and unsustainable deficits." [

11/10/09

,

8/27/09

]

Kristof's question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don't have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, "Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/hawks_i...th-care/#143925

It is simple. It is congress' job to fund the military. It is not their job to fund health care. If we would stick to what congress should do we would all take home enough more money to pay for our own helath insurance. This is just such a tired old line used by anyone for anything. Really, at least think of something new.

Thats why it's called REFORM.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

This is a VERY limited way of looking at what a government is supposed to do.

The function of a government is to take care of and protect its citizens.

Funding the military is only part of this. Its not by any means the only thing that congress needs to do...

If we only funded the military, I don't see how any of us would have more money as the military is by far the most costly part of our budget and provides the least in returns to the people. Please note, I did not say major corporations, I said the people....

Do not think for even a second that corporations are in any way the same as the people.

-Phil

It is simple. It is congress' job to fund the military. It is not their job to fund health care. If we would stick to what congress should do we would all take home enough more money to pay for our own helath insurance. This is just such a tired old line used by anyone for anything. Really, at least think of something new.

[Kevin and 10]

Its never been about the deficit its all about protecting or increasing shareholder value in the affected private companies. If our defence department was completly public and did not use any private contractors, I don't think you would see as much push to increase troop levels.

For starters, in this country, it's call the defense dept. not "defence" dept.

The private contractors emerged because there hasn't been a major increase in troop levels. You've got it backwards.

I am not talking about just the contractors on the security side of things, I am talking about all defense contractors as a whole.

The reason why private contractors are used is largely a political one, there are no costs savings to using a guard from Xe (formerly Blackwater) instead of a regular solider. In some cases it can have a much higher diplomatic cost if the private contractor does play by the rules that bind regular soldiers. But the real reason for using private contractors is poltical convience. Reinstating the draft would have been politically impossible, especially when a war was put together for such shaky reasons as Iraq was.

Blackwater/Xe "Contractors" are unlawful combatants not bound by Geneva Convention laws. That makes them indispensable on the battlefield. They can get things done that GIs can't.

Not sure I would consider that a good thing. They can now be held accountable by local laws, which for some places would probably be worse.

I do find it hypocritical that Bush and company complained about unlawful combatants being hired while they themselves used thousands of Blackwater/Xe 'contractors'. I don't like the idea that the .GOV can employ mercenaries and can distance themselves from, or sweep under the rug, any wrong doing 'contractors' might engage in.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's an idea on how to get the Rethuglicans to sign any check for health care reform: We merely call it The War On Disease. Then it's a war and cost, deficit and other concerns will be right out the window with that crowd. Voilà.