War, health care and what's worth borrowing for
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Regarding the Oct. 24 editorial "A critical question":
By juxtaposing funding for additional troops in Afghanistan with the question of paying for universal health care, the editorial confused the issue. As President Obama has said, he has many problems on his plate, and they must be tackled concurrently.
Depending on what we consider our mission to be, we may or may not need to borrow money to provide the troops that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal seeks. I personally think we should restate our mission.
But the editorial was wrong to argue that "universal health care, however desirable, is not 'fundamental to the defense of our people.' " The health of every individual in our nation is as important as education, shelter and food. And it is as fundamental as the defense of our people, because without basic health, we cannot defend ourselves. All developed nations except the United States have come to this conclusion and provide universal health care for their citizens.
To say we can't afford to do so as well is ridiculous. If necessary, other luxuries should be given up until we have taken care of this primary need.
L. John Martin, Bethesda
--
Two quibbles with your reply to a reader questioning why war can be paid for with debt but health reform cannot.
First, defense spending is projected to go up "only 17 percent" from 2008 to 2019, and this translates into a $1.5 trillion "savings"? Our creditor nations will be perplexed by that logic.
And second, since the George W. Bush years, war planning and funding have often been done in drip-drip, ad hoc fashion without larger strategic risks being taken into account. Sure, wars end. But Afghanistan planning needs to take Pakistan into consideration, too. The news that The Post reports daily from there is dreadful, and the risks higher. The Taliban makes no distinction between these two fronts; neither should we.
The road ahead appears longer and more complex than Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's current recommendation may reflect.
David McAuley, McLean
