Lugar: War More Important Than Uninsured

By Steve Hynd

While we're talking about Afghanistan and humanitarian considerations, how about this?

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he was wary of strict benchmarks that put both sides in an untenable situation if they're not met. But he said an early test of success will be whether Afghan forces can hold onto southern parts of the country after the U.S. and NATO succeed in chasing out the Taliban.

With Obama's Afghanistan speech coming as the Senate takes up the debate over the health care overhaul, Lugar recommended that Congress postpone the health care effort until next year so lawmakers can concentrate on how to finance the war.

"The war is terribly important," Lugar said. "I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year ... and talk now about the essentials: the war and money."

There's 28.5 million people in Afghanistan - not all of whom want the U.S. occupation to continue - and 56.1 million uninsured in the U.S.

In short, Senator Lugar wants to fuck over the latter group so that he can keep the war on the former going. Niiiice. He's right in a sense - there's no way to pay for both. But I think he's probably got the "which one should go" equation arse for elbow.

Update: Zaid at Think Progress weighs in, quoting Nicholas Kristof:

In his New York Times column today, 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?

...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.�

And, as Zaid notes, healthcare reform would actually lower the deficit, not add to it.