Before reading further, please be aware that the person mentioned in this post asked that his presentation be off the record. While I do not mention the specifics of his presentation, I would prefer that any of my references to the presenter not be used for purposes beyond this blog post discussion or class.
-----
Last week, I missed
class because I was meeting with Maryland's Center for International and
Security Studies invited speaker, David Mosher, who is the Assistant
Director for National Security for the Congressional Budget Office. Initially,
I was interested in his analysis of the recently proposed defense cuts. His
analysis was thorough and the solutions he suggested were thought
provoking. However, this was not the part of his presentation that I ended up
finding most compelling.
David spent a great
deal of his time talking about the drivers of projected massive increases in
defense spending. To my surprise, the projected increases in costs were not
just caused by the development of expensive weapon systems or inefficient
procurement programs. Defense Department health care programs are a significant
cost driver for defense spending. This struck me as an economic issue deeply
rooted in the topics that have been discussed in our moral dimensions class.
For DOD employees and
their families, health care is significantly less expensive than for other
Americans. In many ways, can be considered socialized medicine. One argument is
that, because of health care is so inexpensive, people who participate in these
health plans seek medical advice and attention at a higher rate than those who
participate in civilian health care plans. Having only looked at this issue in
a cursory way, there is still a lot I do not know. My first question is whether
health care costs are increasing because of inexpensive health care or are the
increases caused by the wars that have been waged over the past decade. Another
is how these costs increases compare to other points in history. Finally, what types of medical visits
and procedures are people under these plans getting?
Even with these
unanswered questions, this leads me to wonder what the United States’
obligation should be to those who are part of the defense establishment. Should health care be free, or next to
free, for those within the defense establishment? On one hand, defense spending
is increasing at an astronomical rate, eating up money that could either be
spent on social programs or be in the pockets of Americans. A utilitarian
argument might be that population is best served by paying less for its
military and devoting those resources for other purposes. At the same time,
another contradictory utilitarian argument could be that a decrease in benefits
to the military would weaken the United States’ ability to attract employees
and, ultimately, protect itself.
On a moral level,
there is the additional question of what does America owe its troops. In
exchange for being put in harms way and, perhaps, having to deal with lifetime
psychological and physical ailments, maybe soldiers should have unlimited
access to inexpensive health care. Under this line of logic, maybe health care
SHOULD be the biggest cost driver in Defense Spending.
There are economic solutions out there
that would minimize costs, but these do not answer the more fundamental
questions about how we should treat those in the military. What do others
think?
