John McCain was on the Today Show this morning, talking with Matt Lauer about the President s speech last night. Something he said struck me, and it is something I have heard quite a few Republicans in Congress say. They look at the cost of $900 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years for the health plan and say ‘Well, we can t afford this and we would be irresponsible to saddle our children with that debt.’ Well, to me it seems like it s not an issue with spending money and saddling future generations with debt, it s a matter of priorities.
In 2002, with a Republican controlled Congress (Democrats hadn t have control until 2007), Bush and Company entered us into two wars while still making significant tax cuts and not making corresponding cuts in spending to pay for the war. He fired White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, who pegged the original estimate at $200 billion for the Iraq War alone, and told the American public it would cost $50-60 billion. By the end of 2006, again with a Republican controlled Congress, the cost had reached $600 billion. There was no increase in taxes during that entire time to pay for these wars. It was the first war in American history to not be paid for in real time. It was ENTIRELY financed by debt and had been from day one. Every cent of the wars cost has added to our deficit.
Now it is clear to everyone that none of the original reasons we were told were valid for entering into these wars were true and it has arguably made the situation in the region even worse. To date, the wars have cost us $864 billion (Fox News.com, 8/12/09), not including associated costs such as disability payments and medical treatment for the wounded, additional recruiting effort costs and the replacement of expended equipment. When all is said and done, the CBO states that the wars will cost us a total of $1.27 TRILLION, not including interest on the 100% of it we borrowed and we won t even talk about the 650,000 plus civilian lives in Iraq alone and the lives of over 6500 US soldiers and contractors that have been lost. Over 30,000 US soldiers have been wounded and millions have been displaced. Harvard’s Linda Bilmes and Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz crunched the numbers and came up with any even worse $2 trillion final cost and testimony before the Joint Economic Committee in June, 2008 put the figure at $2.7 trillion. And what will we have gotten for those trillions of dollars? Can anyone tell me? Yet there was plenty of enthusiasm for the idea of getting into these wars’¦
We are looking at spending significantly less, saving lives and increasing the quality of life for others by implementing a health care plan, yet now we can t afford it? We have saddled our children with the entire cost, both financial and otherwise plus interest, of these wars but NOW people are talking about how unfair it is to burden them? That s like saying you can t afford to give your kids lunch money because you just got done taking a month long couple s retreat to the Bahamas and dinner at Lutece. Is it just me, but do the priorities seem WAY off here? We make investments into the destruction of other countries and the deaths of our men and women, but we can t make an investment into the future of this nation and the heath of its children? Maybe we ll just send those kids off to a foreign country to get blown to bits and then we won t have to worry about paying for their health care anymore’¦would it then be money well spent?
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
You mean like this?
FLASHBACK: French healthcare ‘badly run’…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm
or maybe this?
French gov’t to tackle surging health care deficit…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/04/israel.wall.discovered/index.html
How about this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
And if medicare is so well run how come even the govetnment says it will run out of funds soon? Again, research people, not just your party’s line.
Excellent point, Laura (re: money wasted on wars, tax cuts to rich, etc., but none to keep people healthy).
When debating the cost of health care, why do we not factor in the cost of private care we are all paying? Considering that we spend, overall, roughly 50% more per capita on health care than any other country, and still rank behind over 30 other countries in the delivery of care, we should have the massive amounts we pay to the insurance industry on the table when determining how to pay for reform.
The irony, based on other comments here, is that the two most efficient large health care orgnizations in the country are Medicare and the VA. Over 90% of the money goes to care, as opposed to closer to 75% in the private health care world. And the overall care from both government agencies ranks high in delivery of care.
The scandal in the VA involved isolated cases with US soldiers who were not receiving the care needed in specific situations. The scandal came from political appointees not reacting quickly when the cases were uncovered. (This happened during the Bush administration. Those anomalies appear to have since been corrected.)
By far the best, most efficient, and most cost-effective health care systems in the world are government-run, what our right-wing friends would call socialized medicine.
I have one big question- where in the article did I ever say I was in favor of the public option? Where are the words public option even located?
The article was about the GOP stance that we can’t afford a comprehensive health care plan, only reform and deregulation. I question priorities here.
YOU are the one who assumes that I am in favor of the public option. But then again, you assume a lot of things as long as they fall within the scope of what negative things you want to believe…
Still you don’t address the fact the ITS RUN POORLY! Medicade, medicare, run poorly! Cash for clunkers, mis-managed. The government still throws money at those. So why should I think that the government is going to get it right with healt care? It’s too important an issue to let the government screw it up. Like they have many other “good intentions”. I got news for you. The republicans are not in power. I suggest you get help for your Bush derangement syndrome. I hear they have a pill for that now. The Democrats and Obama have their turn at the wheel and so far are doing no better. Cap and trade will be the largest tax increase in history on small business. How is that good for the economy? Spending stimulus still hasn’t made it to the states that need it. How is that helping the economy. Every president has complained about inheriting the problems of the last guy. Guess what. That also is the nature of the beast. Solutions, not problems is what I am interested in. They have no one to blame now but them selves and I giggle each time they, or their supporters bring up the Bush Boogie man. Grow up.
And yet the Republicans throw the military all the money they can get away with everytime they get the chance and put this country into debt doing it….That’s less government for ya….
Next….
It’s government run. Nough said.
The VA is run by the military, an entity that no one, especially the Republicans, does much looking at or holds particularly accountable. You cannot compare the two.
Next…
And what about the scandel at the V.A. hospital. If they treat war vets that way what makes you think they will treat the American public any better?
Wow, what a great article! But watch out, Laura your use of REAL facts and reason will surely garner all kinds of manufactured Republican rage from those who want to delay, delay, delay any real reform. It’s not about money ( not that we shouldn’t be concerned about the price tag, but as you say, it is a matter of priority) with most of these folks. They just want to see Obama fail. And it doesn’t matter who gets hurt along the way. Guess they’ll just chalk it up to collateral damage.