The New York Times wrote a poignant article on how improving healthcare will probably diminish the US military.
Until the Nixon era, the US military had a mandatory enlistment program. When Nixon abolished the draft, enlistment decreased by roughly 50%. Recruiters had to find new ways of luring in potential soldiers. They added cash bonuses, increased the number of recruiters, and, offered a sweet healthcare package.
NYT research shows that healthcare has been a significant factor in deciding to enlist.
Michael Massing, (The New York Review of Books, April 3) tells the story of one part-time college student from Brooklyn, who was holding down two jobs but still going into debt. “Meanwhile, he got married, his wife got pregnant, and he had no health care. From a brother in the military, he had learned of the Army’s many benefits, and, visiting a recruiter, he heard about Tricare, the military’s generous health plan.” He enlisted.
It seems a bit perverse that the incentives for a young person with children to join are greater than the incentives for his childless friend. But that is the way it is.
So what happens when a national healthcare policy is put into place? Enlistment drops. Iraq is understaffed (presumably, this even applies to an exit policy). And the Army is out of an incentive to bring more people in.
The challenge, then, is finding new people to fight the war. The recession may help: chronically unemployed people with a grim economic outlook are more likely to enlist than those expecting a job down the line.
In the longer term, the military may rely on education benefits. Congress passed a bill approving full public-university tuition and $1,000/month living expenses for veterans who served at least three years in the military after 9/11. Candidate McCain says this bill will only help if people stay in the army longer–most people these days choose not to re-enlist.
In sum, it’s a grim trade-off: Iraq and Afghanistan for national health. I definitely stand on the side of healthcare, which is so desperately needed in our country…but the government can’t ditch an entire national security campaign without some kind of repercussion. What do you think?
(Image by John Montgomery Flagg)
” It seems a bit perverse that the incentives for a young person with children to join are greater than the incentives for his childless friend. But that is the way it is.”
So the life of a person with children is thus worth more than of a person without children. Interesting view of NYT.
{sarcasm}Wouldn’t it be horrible if the #1 cause of debt wasn’t health costs and we no longer could afford wars of aggression?{/sarcasm}
Makes sense to me. Money spent on the American Sheeples health will mean less money for Dictator Bush to spend on his Global Domination efforts!
JT
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
Interesting that an American has to join the military to get the same sort of benefits everyone in Canada and western Europe gets simply for BEING A CITIZEN.
Easy,
Stop engaging in useless wars.
Makes sense to me too. Anyone who finds themselves in Iraq is going to need all the health insurance they can get. A life insurance policy wouldn’t hurt either.
Makes sense to me too. Anyone who finds themselves in Iraq is going to need all the health insurance they can get. A life insurance policy wouldn’t hurt either.
I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dry as healthcare versus having a standing army. If Obama is to win and implement a badly, BADLY needed national healthcare initiative, he would also take big steps in reducing the size of the oversees deployments. Hopefully, the withdrawl of troops would facilitate the (anticipated, I’m sure) dropoff in enlistment.
However, enlistment certainly won’t reach ‘panic’ levels, as a volunteer force will still be in fine shape. One could even make the argument that although the size may decrease, the skill and passion may somehow increase without the “input” of those simply looking for health benefits.
This article even said that after the DRAFT was discontinued, enlistment fell by 50%. Not 100, 50. And that’s after a draft. I think a trade-off in medical benefits is much less to worry about.
Hopefully, this doesn’t turn into another idiotic Republican “talking-point”. (You can barely call what they do talking)
“Interesting that an American has to join the military to get the same sort of benefits everyone in Canada and western Europe gets simply for BEING A CITIZEN.”
Yes, and in order to pay for their sub-par quality healthcare, they have to tax their citizens at such high levels that their people are too poor to support their domestic economy. The European and Canadian healthcare systems lack the quality of the American healthcare and they are overstrained as it is.
Healthcare is not a right. Rights are more abstract concepts. Saying healthcare is a right is like saying the Second Amendment entitles everyone to a free gun.
Anything that depends on the services of someone else cannot be right.
It’s supposed to be where if you need a doctor, you pay for them yourself, and for really expensive healthcare costs, you buy health insurance. But unfortunately, the states (which regulate their health insurance companies) have seriously impaired the American health insurance industry, so now it is being priced too costly.
This needs to be fixed. Buying health insurance is not like buying car insurance.
National healthcare won’t do it. You can’t change the underlying reality of the problem. National healthcare is just another way to ration healthcare. California, the 6th largest economy in the world, tried to implement a universal healthcare program recently, and it was axed because it was determined it would bankrupt the state. There is no way anyone can make such care available to all 320 million Americans. Costs would explode and skyrocket out of control.
California sets the standard. If they could successfully implement a universal healthcare program that was cost-effective, I would be for national healthcare perhaps, but the reality is the economics don’t allow it.
Massachusette’s universal care program has also run into cost overruns.
“The challenge, then, is finding new people to fight the war.” No, the challenge is to keep our nation from engaging in these insane wars.
Dear America,
It makes me laugh when I read about you idiots. “Oh no, we can’t look after our people because then we wont have enough people to kill people”. You guys are hilarious.
Much love,
Australia
Dear Bill from Australia, don’t laugh too hard because you “idiots” are in Iraq and Afghanistan with us. If you wankers are so smart, why are you there as well?
P.S. Watch who you call idiots.
Hi Greg. I’m sure you noted my sarcasm and I urge you not to take it too seriously as a self elected representative of your country
Whilst I see where you’re coming from I was making a comment on your countries health system and utilisation of its “human resources” not it’s involvement in the wars.
Whilst we’re on topic tho – you might notice that we’ve recently elected a government who is pulling us out of Iraq, so good luck with that one but were gonna tough it out in Afghanistan and finish what you guys started because someone’s gotta do it whilst you guys look after the more oil rich countries.
Cheers,
Bill
Sorry, Bill. I didn’t pick up on your sarcasm. I don’t normally respond to posts in that matter. I actually hate name-calling. I guess you struck a nerve. I guess I see it in a lot of boards how my country and its citizens get bashed even though there are so many of us here who are against the way things have been for the last seven years.
With my local hospital closing due to lack of funds and several others in my area on the brink of shutting their doors, it really angers me when I think of how much money we are wasting in Iraq.
Again, please accept my apologies.
Also, thanks for “having our back” in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m hoping we can put someone more like Kevin Rudd in office this November.