Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Here's an obvious solution to the health care crisis: why not cut the Pentagon's massive budget to fund health care for all?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Warfare and Health Care

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted March 11, 2008.


Here's an obvious solution to the health care crisis: why not cut the Pentagon's massive budget to fund health care for all?
Advertisement

It's kind of logical. In a pathological way.

A country that devotes a vast array of resources to killing capabilities will steadily undermine its potential for healing. For social justice. For health care as a human right.

Martin Luther King Jr. described the horrific trendline four decades ago: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

If a society keeps approaching spiritual death, it's apt to arrive. Here's an indicator: Nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance, and tens of millions of others are badly under-insured. Here's another: The United States, the world's preeminent warfare state, now spends about $2 billion per day on military pursuits.

Gaining health care for all will require overcoming the priorities of the warfare state. That's the genuine logic behind the new "Health Care NOT Warfare" campaign.

I remember the ferocious media debate over the proper government role in health care -- 43 years ago. As the spring of 1965 got underway, the bombast was splattering across front pages and flying through airwaves. Many commentators warned that a proposal for a vast new program would bring "socialism" and destroy the sanctity of the free-enterprise system. The new federal program was called Medicare.

These days, when speaking on campuses, I bring up current proposals for a "single payer" system -- in effect, Medicare for Americans of all ages. Most students seem to think it's a good idea. But once in a while, someone vocally objects that such an arrangement would be "socialism." The objection takes me back to the media uproar of early 1965.

Today, we're left with the unfulfilled potential of Medicare for all. It could make healthcare real as a human right. And it could spare our society a massive amount of money now going to administrative costs and corporate gouging. At last count, annual insurance-industry profits reached $57.5 billion in 2006.

On Capitol Hill, lobbyists for the corporate profiteers are determined to block H.R. 676, the bill to create a universal single-payer system to implement health care as a human right.

In the current presidential campaign, none of the major candidates can be heard raising the possibility of ejecting the gargantuan insurance industry from the nation's health care system. Instead, there's plenty of nattering about whether "mandates" are a good idea. Hillary Clinton even has the audacity (not of hope but of duplicity) to equate proposed health care "mandates" with the must-pay-in requirements that sustain Social Security and Medicare.

For Clinton's analogy to make sense, we'd have to accept the idea that requiring everyone to pay taxes to the government for a common-good program is akin to requiring everyone to pay premiums to private insurance companies for personal medical coverage.

A recent New York Times story was authoritative as it plied the conventional media wisdom. The lead sentence declared that an "immediate challenge that will confront the next administration" is the matter of "how to tame the soaring costs of Medicare and Medicaid." And the news article pointedly noted that current federal spending for those health-related programs adds up to $627 billion.

I've been waiting for a New York Times news story to declare that an immediate challenge for the next administration will be the matter of how to tame the soaring costs of the Pentagon. After all, the government's annual military spending -- when you factor in the supplemental bills for warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is well above the $627 billion for Medicare and Medicaid that can cause such alarm in the upper reaches of the nation's media establishment.

Assessing the current presidential race, the Times reported: "The Democrats do not say, in any detail, how they would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid or what they think about the main policy options: rationing care, raising taxes, cutting payments to providers or requiring beneficiaries to pay more."

There are other "policy options" -- including drastic cuts in the Pentagon budget. And health care for all.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health care, military spending, mandates, medicare

Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We really want the gov't running healthcare?
Posted by: carbon-based on Mar 11, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm the first to say do anything that will bring down healthcare cost - considering my premiums are out of sight for a plan no doc wants to participate in!

But to cut defense.. typical democratic gibberish that would have no real way of implementing. Just a small point - what would you do with the tens of thousands of workers laid off. Or what would you do when you have to fight a war and you don’t have the technology to do it and it cost 10 times the number of American lives it would now!

Talk about creating a socialists society.

A different solution - eliminate the situation that gave rise to crazy premiums. The most litigious society on the face of the earth.. crazy punitive damage awards and a drug industry raping the nation. How about reduced medical education cost so we could have more docs that could afford to work clinics etc..etc.

Correct these and many more administrative issues and maybe people can afford healthcare.

The last thing we need is for a government to run our healthcare industry. Look at everything elese they run - a mess that doesn’t work!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I get tired of this lie Posted by: aethr
» RE: I get tired of this lie Posted by: rickiey
» RE: YES!!YES!!YES!! Posted by: Andie927
» simply not true Posted by: B. Spoon
» RE: simply not true Posted by: rickiey
» RE: simply not true Posted by: B. Spoon
» RE: simply not true Posted by: rickiey
HR.676 and socialism
Posted by: aethr on Mar 11, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"On Capitol Hill, lobbyists for the corporate profiteers are determined to block H.R. 676, the bill to create a universal single-payer system to implement health care as a human right."

The problem with HR676 is that it does venture towards socialism, with its prohibition on private for-profit health care providers and management of health care workers incomes.

Why not use the French model for single payer health care, a model that allows for-profit health care providers and incorporates private insurance and private insurance companies in useful ways? Why not model our system on the best rather than on some poorly thought out alternative created by people who unjustifiably fear markets?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HR.676 and socialism Posted by: ShoShenQ
Socialism?Police, Fire Departments, Schools
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 12, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's wrong with Socialism?? There are some things in this world, that others should not have the right to 'make as much money as possible', from and one of them is healthcare!!

Are there no limits to Your Capitalistic Greed?? You think it's okay to take advantage of sick, and injured people who are helpless? If you can't pay, we should just leave you on the side of the road and let you bleed to death??

No Insurance to cover the cost, let the house burn down?? Your wife/mother is robbed and raped, no Police Insurance?? no investigation or arrest, Get Over It???

Want to go to the park?? Pay at the gate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socialism, can be a good thing!
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 12, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone choose to get injured, or ill? Jogging down the street, and a car hits you! You trip on something? You slip and fall getting out of the bath tub?

You going to call around, look for the best priced, hospital or clinic?

Our country ranks 26th, in the World, for healthcare results! Every other Industrialized nation in the world, provides not-for-profit, single-payer REAL healthcare for ALL their citizens! We, as a nation, spend twice as much on healthcare, as the next closest country, with far worse results!!! (Malpractice law suits has absolutely Nothing to do with it.)Insurance Co. and For-Profit hospitls, have everything to do it!!

Give doctors, and healthcare workers, Great pay, just eliminate the Profit motive, Medicare runs on a 3% administrative cost! After a massive audit, over three years, the error rate found in Medicare Billing, was .05%. These are well run programs that seriously help people!

Germany, Sweden, Finland, and many many other countries around the world, all have Single-payer Universal healthcare!!Why re-invent the wheel?? Just take the best parts of what works, in other countries, and use them! Open the doors to Medical Schools, train ALL qualified American Citizens, who want to become doctors!

IF, some people out there, have this overwhelming need, to make money off sick people, let them offer a supplemental insurance policey, for non-essential care! For elective surgery, plastic surgery, chiropractic care, a private room, fertility treatment, things that are non-life-threatening!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cut for-profit health insurers before defense
Posted by: B. Spoon on Mar 12, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tactic just confuses the issue by mixing it with another. Why should we continue to allow profit-driven health insurers to consume 31% of our health care dollar pie while 47 million Americans are left without even a crumb? Health insurers alone divert enough of our health care dollars (away from often desperately needed care) than it would cost us to cover all Americans comprehensively (and far more reliably) from cradle to grave, plus save at least $350 billion dollars per year to use for far more productive sectors within our economy. www.pnhp.org

Health insurers' success depends upon charging for goods and services that are not delivered. The more they can charge and the less they can deliver, the better off they are. They are unbelievably well off precisely because they charge so much and deliver so little. Why is it not obvious to ALL Americans (uniquely in our civilized world) that this is not (but in fact the opposite of) a model of success for consumers? These are not only free market rules our health insurers are breaking, but also ones of common human decency.

How do we fund universal health care done right? Cut out inefficient, unnecessary, greedy and immoral middlemen...and start utilizing efficiencies of scale. Uniting together into the biggest protective pool possible would add the reliable coverage, transparency and freedom of choice among independent providers that we all need but now lack in our current health care unsurance, denial-of-care system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

$6,000 per second
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 12, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The occupation of Iraq is costing taxpayers - or more accurately the descendents of current taxpayers - $6,000 per second! That's $360,000 per minute. That pays for a lot of health care!

I understand why some people don't want to "take away from national security" to support health care, and I agree that taking away from the obscene profits of the insurance industry is a good idea. However, the US spends more on the military than the total spent by most of the rest of the world combined. This incredible amount is unnecessary for American security.

But aside from the cost of the military and the insurance company profits, the US spends more per person on health care - from what I've read and heard, about twice as much - as other industrialized countries with "socialized" health care systems. And we have an inexcusable number of people who have no coverage, poor coverage, or barely adequate coverage. People are going bankrupt due to health care costs, they are losing their homes, and they are actually being put out on the street by hospitals. Even if it's true, as opponents of universal health care say, that American medical care is superior, it's only superior for those who can afford it.

American babies die at a higher rate than countries with universal health care, the elderly die younger, and our general health is certainly no better. Anyone who has not seen Sicko should check it out.

I have a friend whose husband got an infection after surgery. They both have good jobs with "full" health benefits, but it looks like they will be in debt for many thousands of dollars because their hospitalization only pays for 80% and they have to cover copayments and some other expenses. I have glaucoma, and I have prescription coverage. Even so, my eye drops cost me $50 for a very, very tiny bottle that's only about half full. (If they put it in a bottle that was the right size for the amount, it would be too small to even use.)

Health care should be like education - fully funded by the government and available to everyone regardless of income. It should be a right, not a privilege.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No need for new money
Posted by: KAB on Mar 12, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA spends about twice as much (per capita GDP) on health care as EU nations who deliver better care for half the cost. Most of the difference is from our inefficient insurance system and from using a fee-for-service model of providing care. New money is not needed to provide universal care. The proper plan will reduce costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It will never change unless....
Posted by: premarachel on Mar 12, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all very well to debate endlessly how and what should be done, but the point that everyone seems to avoid or just plain don't get, is that our nation is run by scoundrels, very wealthy powerful scoundrels, who tilt our tax laws, our corporate laws, who are the source of the policies that have taken us into Iraq, who are responsible for the proliferation of weapons around the world and ultimately the growing poverty of middle and lower income America. I do believe that as a nation we are morally and ethically bankrupt.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of US wealth. This is the greatest inequality of any industrial nation and the worst in US history since the Roaring Twenties. In 1945 the wealthiest Americans were paying a 91 percent taxation (as compared to 31 percent today, if indeed they do pay anything with so many loopholes in place) and it was this that created not only the greatest economic and industrial juggernaut in the history of the world, but also a dynamic middle class that was, comparatively, a golden age in home ownership, education, health, retirement and prosperity. Today the top 1 percent of our richest tax payers pay around 28 percent of our total taxes, at the same time garnering 18 percent of our countries total income/wealth. Is it a coincidence that a 60 percent drop in taxation over the last fifty years for the wealthiest US citizens has seen an equally huge growth and prosperity decline in the middle class of close to 60 percent? This suggests, and I believe correctly, that in 1945 there was a true sense of need and patriotism amongst our wealthiest, and that higher taxation for the wealthiest benefited all Americans. It needs to be noted that there is a current 15 percent growth per year increase in the number of millionaires, who are able to avoid, through current tax loopholes, paying a proportionate fair share of much needed taxes to support and strengthen our country. It bears great consideration at this time, because the effect of this upon the middle and lower income earners, I suspect to be very negative.

Last year over 360,000 of America’s wealthiest citizens moved themselves and their wealth out of the US, choosing to be expatriates. One wonders why? At the rate our wealthiest are leaving, middle and lower income taxes will need to increase considerably just to maintain current status quo, creating both a greater impetus to expatriation and increasing overall poverty in the US.

It seems to me, there is taking place, a very obscene betrayal of the American people, when our president and our government conducts, allows and encourages through flawed taxation, such a vast disparity in wealth that our population bears the negative brunt of such policies, while at the same time our wealthy leaders are talking about patriotism and sacrifice, and shedding the blood of our young men and women in wars of speculation and profit. Over the last fifteen years we have seen the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in our history. Taxing the poor and middle income earners at such an unequal income to tax ratio, to benefit the rich is unacceptable for a nation such as ours. As the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we can and must improve the financial health and well being of all our people through a fair proportionate tax system, dedicated entirely to the welfare of our nation in it’s entirety. We have vast riches in our country that can empower all of us. We are not defined as a country by our dollars, but by the humanity, education, prosperity and health of ALL our people and the people we share our world with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No payer system
Posted by: grn1 on Mar 12, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hippocratic oath once considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine is no longer taken up by all physicians. $223 for 5 minutes in the docs office, all lab work charged seperately and done off site. Blue Cross refused to pay $183 of the co-pay. After buying insurance in 3/2007 by 8/2007 the price had nearly doubled to $700. I have no pre-existing condition and in good health. During the course of my policy with Blue Cross, I was cancelled 3 times and I still don't know why. They still refused to pay the $183 as of several weeks ago because the doc had not turned over my records to them. The docs office swore they did, but mentioned that in 2002 I came in feeling tired and had headaches, and that the insurance company may see this as some sort of risk. I explained that I am no longer covered by them so what is the risk to them financially. This is by no definition INSURANCE, but fraud. Many times in my life I did not have insurance, I birthed my children at home for this reason. A midwife was a fraction of what hospitals and physicians would have cost, and after reading statistics of countries that practice midwifery both maternal and infant mortality rates were much lower. My daughter now living in New Zealand has excellent medical care and pays little or nothing. A medical professional told me not to pay for insurance, I took the doctors advice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Easier said than done
Posted by: willymack on Mar 12, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most of us would agree that our military/industrial establishment has metastisized into a voracious monster with a life of its own, and needs serious trimming. The money thus saved would easily pay for a not-for-profit, government administered universal health care system on a par with France or Denmark, and with money left over. All we have to do is face up to murderous opposition from the military, drug companies, insurance companies, and crooked politicans. Easier said than done, but NECESSARY for the well-being of our nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Green Party is a Start! Posted by: Andie927
To carbon-based
Posted by: rsmohio on Mar 12, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of what you said may be true in regard to where the waste and abuse exists in the current system The main point of this story is still relevant. There is really no reason that I can comprehend that the United States has over 800 bases in at least 130 countries. The only reason is for the maintenance of the American empire. Yet the only people wanting an empire are the morons at the very top who are working at creating it. Empires have a notorious inclination to fall. History has proven it too many times to go into here. The smart thing to do would be to begin disassembling the empire before it comes down the hard way. Then we could use the cash for something worthwhile. Our military is becoming a power unto itself and needs to be reigned in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same Defense for a third of the current price
Posted by: rafey on Mar 12, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, as in the eighties, our defense budget looms primarily due to the gross over priceing of the goods. Just yesterday it was announced that Haliburtin is charging the govt. an additional $150 M dollars in order to print its logo on some of the gear and outfits for soldering (read _occupying_) Iraq. The contracts that I have witnessed are simply outrageous and we are not getting any kind of bang for the buck ... that is for dern certain!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Mar 12, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last night watching C-Span and some kind of Congressional hearing on the subject. The Repugs were (what else is new) having fits about spending our money on us. Have these guys forgotten that they actually are elected and expected to represent us? Republican government is so opposed to spending on anything but war and weapons, but they do love spending other people's money like drunken sailors. The only stipulation they put on the spending is that they get something out of it personally. As I sat there I had the exact thought as the author of this piece. But then I came to my senses and wondered what I had been thinking. That these guys sitting in this historical room in Washington D.C. were actually sentient beings not what they truly are, a bunch of corrupt, greedy, stupid, whiney, jackals out to get a buck any way they can even if they have to steal it from their constituents. It was a nice fantasy while it lasted though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military Spending
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 12, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Outragous! The United Sates, military spending is more then all the rest of the worlds combine!!!

We don't NEED to be in 1/10th of these places, except to protect, Corporate Interests! Mining Interests, Oil, or American owned factories, there to exploit 'cheap' labor, thus avoiding paying Americans, and American Taxes! The same taxes, they want us to spend, to protect them, all over the world!!

I say, bring back the Tariffs! Make these Corporations pay their fair share, for our highways, schools, ect. that produce the consumers they need to buy their 'cheap' goods!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TOOLS, NOT RULES
Posted by: Ahimsa on Mar 12, 2008 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One would think that by now we have understood that different economic-social models have weaknesses and strengths.
That socialism is good for some things (welfare, public health, public education, etc) and capitalism is good for, well, business...and...business...
An educated population would be able to discern between issues like this, but without an educated population (we'd need good public education for that) we are lost.
We need educational campaigns to educate the public about these issues.
Can we call things by their names?
Can we evolve out of the absurd dogma Capitalism = Freedom?
Grassroots anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's an idea
Posted by: Hans B on Mar 12, 2008 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a great idea how to solve the health care problem while simultaneously continuing to spend 100 times more on the military than is really needed. I'm sure no one has thought of it before.

Why not do the same thing as for invading Iraq, giving no-bid contracts to buddies, reducing taxes and increasing subsidies for the rich, and other Bush programs? Cost was never a problem there.

That is to say, why not just borrow the money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ben and Jerry Approach to Federal Spending
Posted by: cocopuffed on Mar 12, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Ben and Jerry Approach to Federal Spending:

http://truemajority.org/oreos/

Just.Do.It.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congressional Healthcare For All
Posted by: cherylholmes on Mar 13, 2008 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say let's have the same coverage and run it the same way as all of Congress has.

I also say, time to stop being imperialists, and take care of our own 1st. Stop the wars, stop the HUGE, b;oated Pentagon increases which is are in the trillions. What we spend exerting our imperialism can take care of all our people in need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scarecrows makers.
Posted by: compu on Mar 14, 2008 11:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long,long ago the US is invincible .
Only the crazy or deeply offended
may take on it.
First it was communism,now is war on terror.
Both are arguments to fleece.
How you say dracula?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solomon has it backwards: health care for all will only occur through a military budget.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 16, 2008 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's right, you heard me right.

Look, how did we get the school lunch program? We got it because the U.S. military was upset that some of its recruits in WWII were too malneurished to be effective soldiers. So the U.S. military joined progressive Democrats, social welfare activists and christian activists in creating the school lunch program.

Solomon like many unrealistic navel gazing lefties wants to cut the defense budget and replace it with health care. I agree with the sentiment, and in fact he's partly right from a realistic political stand point that we could get much of the money from getting out of our Iraq military misadventure. And I would whole heartedly support a Healthcare Not Warfare political campaign. But he's flat out wrong about the notion that we can politically sell the concept to a majority at this time. It's always been difficult to do, but "in a time of war" nearly impossible. I'm not suggesting we don't try, that's noble and maybe productive in educating many.

But to close the deal and actually accomplish health care reform, the most effective way would be to bring on board the military. At this point, Neocons could care less if their soldiers are sick. Neocons probably enjoy making our soldiers sicker. But eventually, if there are any grownups left in our government and military, they will want healthy soldiers too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how about cutting the budget and
Posted by: Joe on Mar 17, 2008 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
giving me my money back allowing me to band together with whom i please to provide healthcare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

warfare vs. healthcare
Posted by: barbs on Mar 19, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Parade Magazine ( which many people see) did a bar graph last week on "Where Your Money Goes"; it show $583B for military spending and $396B for Medicare....shows what our priorities are....
In addition to writing my congresspeople and the candidates, I have written to AARP who used the same language as the NYTimes; we need to change the 'rhetoric' to the reality.

This should be the new grassroots campaign.

Everyone should contact their newspapers and congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]