Universal health care in the U.S. isn’t worth divesting from the military

In the 20th century, there is arguably no greater indicator of a country’s success than the ways in which its government creates equitable systems of health care. In a post-Covid world, where the preservation of a nation’s health is a top priority, universal health care has allowed countries to ensure that their populations receive efficient and equitable medical treatment. The United States, however, is one of the few developed countries with no such system. 

This is somewhat paradoxical. One would think that this country, with its massive budget, could afford to foot the medical bills of its citizens. The demand certainly exists for such a program — 57% of adults believe that the U.S. government is ultimately responsible for providing  single-payer health care. Some politicians are even calling for it. Their solution seems convenient at first: Take money from the “oversized” military and put it into universal health care. But a deeper look reveals flaws with this logic.

When Congress was set to pass a massive foreign aid bill in 2023, Senator Bernie Sanders wrote a letter to his colleagues criticizing the policy. He explained, “Let’s be clear: it is not only foreign countries that face emergencies. We face enormous crises in this country right now in terms of child care, primary health care, housing, and much more.” New York Times Opinion writer Lindsay Koshgarian made an even more extreme argument in 2019, suggesting that divestment from the military could be the answer to Americans’ lack of nationalized healthcare. Additionally, it could reel in what is considered by some to be too large and robust of a military. The current geopolitical landscape, however, makes this plan a bad one. Rising global tensions and growing threats to the United States mean that subsidizing health care at the cost of debilitating the world’s most powerful military might do more harm than good.

Rising international tensions — like those between China and Taiwan as well as the ongoing war in Ukraine — serve as constant reminders of the fragility of democracy, and now more than ever it is important now more than ever to ensure that representative political systems are defended by well-funded forces.

Those opposed to the idea of a powerful U.S. military often claim that it is dangerously large. They point to the U.S.’ decades-long involvement in the Middle East, which has led to tens of thousands of innocent deaths. These ethical concerns are valid, but with brutal, authoritarian regimes vying for global dominance, now does not feel like an appropriate time to scale back defense spending.

In the last decade alone, authoritarian powers have used their militaries to subjugate people to brutal violence in order to promote political messages or fulfill their plans for expansion. In the Xinjiang province of China, ethnic cleansing efforts have led to the interment of up to 1.5 million Uyghur Muslims in camps. In Europe, as the Russian offensive into Ukraine persists, many are accusing Russian troops of committing war crimes against Ukrainian civilians. While the U.S. military is responsible for committing acts of violence across the world, it is important to note that most of the global powers competing with the U.S. have  far worse track records regarding the protection of human rights. 

So, while universal health care is important, so is the power of the American armed forces. Yes, medical costs are rising and quality of life is diminishing, but given the current state of global politics, defunding the military is simply not the way to change this.

While pacifist in theory, divestment from  the military would only jeopardize democracy’s permanence on the world stage. However, this is not to say that defunding the military in a more peaceful future could not be a means of making accessible healthcare a reality for the American people.

As global tensions rise, it is important to ensure that the interests of the democratic world are protected abroad. The U.S. military must remain the sole global superpower in order to ensure that authoritarian states are prevented from reaching similar levels of global recognition.

Mateo Alvarez is an Opinion columnist studying political science. He is interested in the cross-section of politics and culture and can be reached at mateoalv@umich.edu.

The post Universal health care in the U.S. isn’t worth divesting from the military appeared first on The Michigan Daily.