Reality Check

I have seen several articles on 9/11 debating whether the US is safer now than then, particularly since we went to Iraq. That 9/11 is even connected to Iraq as somehow making us safer is laughable, especially considering the only relation between the two is that 9/11 was used as an excuse to get into Iraq. Any suggestion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 has been roundly proven to be non-existent. Yet the myth remains.

Ironically (or not considering the climate of this country since the year 2000), in the so many "arguments" against healthcare reform, the reason most often posited against any public option by those purporting to be reasonable is the cost. This is ironic mainly considering these same naysayers have not been arguing against the obscene cost of the Iraq war. Even if the government took over 100% of healthcare, owned every medical facility, hired every medical professional, and owned all of the equipment, the cost still would come nowhere near what we have spent and continue to spend on the Iraq war.

Supporters of the Iraq war have long used the argument that being there keeps us safe from terrorists. This of course is in spite of evidence against any connection between Iraq and terrorism, at least before we got there. We may now have created more terrorists in the way we have handled and treated the citizens in Iraq. But to the supporters of the war, spending money in Iraq is spending money to combat terrorism.

Yet let's be realistic here. Suppose we actually were doing something to fight terrorism by being in Iraq. Would the cost still be justified?

Ask the average American how their life or the lives of their family members have been touched by terrorism. It is more likely that this person has been struck by lightning five times than it is they have been personally affected by a terrorist attack. Yes, it can be scary for some people to contemplate. But seriously, it is extremely rare any of us will endure anything terrorist-related that affects us personally.

Ask the same average American how their life or the lives of their family members have been affected by the healthcare crisis in this country. It is more likely that they or a family member have been affected personally by the healthcare crisis than not. Nearly everyone has some story to tell. And even if citizens haven't yet been affected, the possibility they will be affected if they lose their job (a much higher possibility even in a good economy than being affected by terrorism), then the lack of affordable healthcare will affect them.

We have spent billions and continue to spend billions in Iraq based on the dubious possibility we might be fighting terrorism, something that affects so few people, yet most of us cannot point to anyone who has been personally affected by it. At the same time, we have politicians and citizens arguing against a public option because they claim we can't afford it, even though most of us are affected by it every day.

We need a reality check. The next time a politician claims we can't afford public healthcare, ask them to stop spending money in Iraq and spend it here on healthcare instead. Even if we could afford Iraq (we can't), and even if being in Iraq protected us (it doesn't), the reality is we should stop spending that money there and spend it here at home on something that affects all of us every day.

Comments

[Emerald1943]

Thank you, Lara, for your article. You have said exactly what I have been thinking for a long time.

In regard to the health care debate, in particular the public option, I have good days and bad days. The back-and-forth of reports from the media will, on one day, send my hopes soaring...but on the next, I find myself completely discouraged.

I went to Washington DC for the PRO-reform march. Mysteriously, the permit for that march was canceled just prior to the event. It was then that I really realized the power of the insurance industry, as well as that of the military-industrial complex. Somebody in Washington did not want us seen or heard that day. But yet, the day before, the "teabaggers" were out with all their hatred and ugliness.

We are fighting for the life of this democracy! Either we have ultimate control of our government....or the big corporations can buy whatever they want from our lawmakers. As time goes by, the latter seems to be the case!

If the SCOTUS rules as expected this fall, corporations will be able to donate DIRECTLY to political campaigns. When this happens, democracy will go down as an interesting experiment in the history books! Sorry to sound so cynical, but today is one of those "bad" days.

[killpack]

"Even if the government took over 100% of healthcare, owned every medical facility, hired every medical professional, and owned all of the equipment, the cost still would come nowhere near what we have spent and continue to spend on the Iraq war."

That may be very true. It would also be a serious tragedy. A 100% take over of healthcare by the government would mean one thing. The government would indeed decide how much would be spent on healthcare (whether it's as much as the war or not). That is a very undesireable outcome in my mind. Sure, what I decide between my doctor and my health insurer may not be the most desireable outcome. That comes with the economic problem of imperfect information. But it sure beats a bunch of out of touch Congressmen and all of their cronies decide what is in my best interest health wise and how much exactly it should cost.

[Thabit]

well currently an insurance executive decides what he'll pay knowing that the less he pays the bigger his bonus , and he does not ever have to face the people in Elections for his decisions . As long as the rest of the insurance execs do the same ( and they do) he has less incentive than government do do the right thing in paying claims.

[BobLablah]

So you're saying people are very unlikely to be involved in a terrorist attack. I wonder why that would be.

PS: You know how Obama says his economics policies have saved one million jobs? Wouldn't it be funny if Bush said his terrorist policies stopped one million attacks?

[Thabit]

Wasnt Bush senior director of the CIA during the Afganistan russian war , when Bin Laden was active there too . And bin ladin family funded GW's first company (failed) . Just as strong an argument could be made that Bin Laden hit us BECAUSE a Bush was president . Bin Ladin says that he started Al Qaeda because of western troops in Saudi Arabia which also happened while Bush Senior was President . Just maybe Bushes in Office caused a million attacks that would not have happened otherwise