Tuesday, June 26, 2012

A Nation's Strength: The Health Of Its People

There is a lot of discussion these days about socialism, and just what is socialism.  I am not going to attempt to define socialism, but I am going to give my view on what some may think is socialism.

Years ago, when I was in the U.S. Army, the question was put to us during training: what weapon took the longest to produce.  The answer is 18 years and it is the soldier. Yes, the person, in those days it was only men in combat, and you needed to be at least 18 years old, or, 17 with a parent or guardian's signature to enlist.

The health of the nation was dependent upon a healthy fighting force.  There were no drones in those days that I know of.  So, in essence, our national security is tied to the fact that there will be enough healthy 18 year old men and women that can serve in the military.

If military spending and modern weapon systems are necessary for the security of the country, then how far behind that is the health of future soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coast guard sailors?

I think that the health of our country depends on a healthy military, and a healthy military depends upon healthy future men and women who can serve.  Then, is not the health of our people not directly tied to the national security of our country? And, if that is true, then should not health care be an issue of National Security?

Some people may say I am a socialist for thinking that health care should be a right of all citizens because our nation's strength is in the final analysis dependent on the health of its people. A healthy people makes for a healthy country.  That is my opinion.


J. Kwiatkowski-Schuler said...

Mine, too. And if it were part of department of defense, it would never lack funds.

winslow said...

Everyone in politics throws around terms without understanding. Republicans are fundamentally against "socialism". What they don't seem to understand is that writing off business expenses (such as lunch or golf) IS socialism.