For Iraq.
USAID [has] spent about $150 million in health projects in Iraq - nearly a quarter of the more than $600 million in health being invested overall by the U.S. government in Iraq.
That cost-total is the equivalent of about one year of the House Democrat's proposed reform for the United States. Republicans voted unanimously in the Senate to pass supplemental after supplemental that not only prolonged the war but made healthcare more available to Iraqis. SIX Republicans in the House voted against the supplemental funding.
While this can be viewed empathetically - helping to reshape and reform the Iraqi healthcare crisis was and is a noble goal - but in our current political context, it's a slap in the face to real reform at home.
Why do Republicans feel it's okay to export healthcare funding, but vehemently deny the role of government here? How is the price tag too high, but the trillions spent on war are uncontestable?
Before you point out that I am letting the Democrats off too lightly - nearly all blue dogs supported the same measures. My own personal blue dog voted "yea" on this bill but has said he will oppose any and all healthcare reform in our own country. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
I'm calling his office now. Check your representatives' voting records. Call. Demand consistency. The game is transparent when you poke around a bit.
Protecting special interests does not promote the general welfare.