What Are We Really Fighing For?

People and our US Government always point out the reasons why our soldiers should stay in Iraq but fail to point out the reasons on why they should not.  I believe  the reasons that they should not are far more important then the reasoning they are kept there. 

Everyone has their own reasoning but my number one reason is that far too many soldiers have died in the last couple of years in Iraq and for what?  How much have we really accomplished?  Yes our troops found and killed Osama Bin Laden but how many people died before he was killed?  I know that there is always a chance another person that is a threat to our country can show up but why keep people there when we are not in immediate danger?  We also are fighting a war that is not ours to be fought any longer or for the time being.  Yes there are other people in other countries that depend on our soldiers for their safety but while they fight for someone else’s freedom and safety they are losing their life and freedom.  Life is precious and can only be lived once.   US Today gives a poll on the amount of troops we have lost in the last couple of years that is rather shocking.  It is also so sad to know that so many soldiers have to go month after month and year after year without seeing their family or loved ones.  I know that our troops have just as much pride in themselves, as we do in them for risking their life’s to save others, and our country but when is enough, enough? 

The government also continues to want to keep soldiers in Iraq but who is paying for it?  Our tax payers.  This also supports why we are in the financial bind we are today.   Why not use the money to help repair the problems we are currently experiencing instead of the ones that we really don’t have?

Of course this is completely my opinion and others may have relevant reasoning on why we should keep our troops there. 

Is Paying Off Someone Really What it Comes Down to?

After reading the article, “Should we pay people to stop smoking?” by Jody Sindelar, I had a lot of thoughts run through my mind.  I believe the author Jody Sindelar’s intended audience would be people that are smokers in need of Medicaid.  Sindelar appears to have great credibility because she is a health economist and professor at Yale School of Public Health, and she also has performed some research that could help support her reasoning. 

I am a bit confused why our government would want to pay someone to quit smoking?  It’s obvious that a large portion of our healthcare cost goes to people that smoke or do not have the money to take care of their health because of smoking, but why spend a penny rewarding people?  In my opinion anyone smart knows that if money is waived in front of someone’s face, this would tempt them or temporarily stop their habit, but it never actually last in most cases.  The author uses previous studies to support her theory.  The author quotes, “Research on addiction has repeatedly demonstrated that small payments have persuaded even cocaine addicts to stop using”.  How long does it actually last is the real question.  There is a saying that goes, “money does not buy happiness”, so why does it have to try and buy someone’s choices?  Also how do we know the money they receive will be used for a good cause and not used to buy other drugs?

The author uses the following quote to try and help support she believes that paying smokers to stop would help with the cost of Medicaid, “Thirty-three percent of the Medicaid population smokes, compared with 20% of the U.S. population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”.  This is a high percentage but again why reward people with money?  They will already save money by choosing not to smoke. 

The author also mentions, “what if there was a way to save taxpayers dollars and improve Medicaid patients’ health?” First of all who would pay to have people administer the test or counseling?  There goes more money from everyone’s pocket.  I think just refusing to provide Medicaid for smokers would be a better idea and more cost efficient.  Why pay someone to do something that they know already would be good for their health?  I do not believe the author is not completely convinced it would be an easy fix as she quoted, “Another obstacle to implementation is a lack of research on how best to design such a program for low-income populations. While in previous studies of heroin users I found that paying higher incentive payments is both more powerful and more cost-effective, we do not know the best level of payments for Medicaid smokers.”  There are so many things to consider before a decision could be made.

I just do not feel this would be a fix.  Money would still be wasted administering the test, counseling, researching, and then paying off the recipients.