|
|
|
|
A Tale of Medicaid and Satellites
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Mann, W A M M
|
Recently, I came upon two juxtaposed articles in the Star Tribune and I was struck by how symbiotic they were. The December 12th Minneapolis newspaper had an article on page 12, on the left, about a secret satellite system. Looking to page 13, placed on the right side of the page, there was an article about Medicaid. When the paper was closed, the article about the satellites actually rested atop the article about Medicaid. They belonged together.
The article on page 13 reported that the U.S. is building a new generation of spy satellites in a highly classified program. The headline announced, “Lawmakers balk at cost of satellite few admit exists.” The previously undisclosed effort has almost doubled from its projected original cost of $5 billion to nearly $9 billion, according to officials whose names and agencies are not revealed. Neither the National Reconnaissance Office, the CIA, nor Lockheed Martin Corporation, said to be the lead contractor on the project, would comment.
The stealth satellite, which would probably become the largest single-item expenditure in the $40 billion intelligence budget, is to be launched in the next five years and is meant to replace an existing one. Opponents of the program argue that the satellite is no longer a good match against today’s adversaries, who are believed to have placed their nuclear programs underground and inside buildings to avoid detection.
Concerned about the satellites’ relevancy and escalating costs, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has twice tried to kill the program; however it has been strongly supported by the House Intelligence Committee. No decision has been reached since December 12th, as far as I can determine. No mere law-abiding tax-paying citizen would be able to find that out. Ordinary citizens have no right to such information.
So what has all this to do with Medicaid? Well, the funds for the satellites have to come from somewhere, and it looks like it might be Medicaid. The Star Tribune article on page 12 proclaims, in bold letters, “Medicaid emerges as target for budget-cutters.” One GOP pollster, Linda DiVall, admitted Americans are overwhelmingly against targeting Medicaid for big cuts. Nevertheless, Medicaid cuts have to be put into the mix if conservatives are to accomplish other 2005 goals announced by Bush. (Including preemptive war, of course.)
Medicaid pays for nearly half of all nursing home care in the United States. It pays health care costs of one in four U.S. children and more than 40% of the cost of caring for children in hospitals. It’ll be downright awkward for the various agencies to decide who’s going to be left out. One would assume that the first line of defense, euphemistically speaking, would be children’s health. Were that the case, then the health agencies would have to decide who’s going to be kicked out of nursing homes. That’s certainly not good, but then neither is the razing of Fallujah, the existence of checkpoints denying Palestinians access to live freely, the forced return of immigrants to countries where their lives will be endangered, horrors for which this congress has allocated plenty of funds.
Continually, we read story upon story about increases for weaponry to be funded by cuts in education, health care, and housing. We have to be alert, and question government plans for billions of dollars to be poured into a stealth satellite program (that even pro-war experts deem useless) while core programs for human needs, like Medicaid, are on the chopping block. |
|
|
|
© 2005 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete February 2005 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
