How is it that politicians can always, always find money to finance killing and maiming but cannot find money for health care?

A couple of months ago, Congressman Scott Murphy announced that he was supporting more funding for the war in Afghanistan.

He also supports funding for the US military's "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” formerly known as the “School of the Americas." This is where we train Latin American soldiers to rape, assassinate, pillage and plunder. Civilians included (and especially) old people, women, children – no citizen too small or too innocent to be brutalized and/or savagely murdered.

I note that this same Congressman Scott Murphy is not supporting the latest health care reform bill (he didn't support the last one either). I saw a commercial on Channel 13 informing me of this at about 11:10 p.m. last night. Sponsored by “Employers for a Health Economy” (EHC) it tells people to call Scott Murphy and thank him for being against the Health Care Reform Bill. Check out their Web site and you'll find an impressive list of members. A number of them are in the building trades; a group known for not offering health care to its employees.

I wonder which ones are giving him money and how much? I'll ask without holding my breath because the last time I asked for information his office blew me off. I wanted to know how much Congressman Murphy's total health insurance cost, how much he was paying for his health care insurance and how much I as a taxpayer was subsidizing his insurance.

I couldn't get the same information from Senator Gilibrand's office either. (While it is my understanding that she supports health care reform, she also supports more funding for any war that's put before her.) I was told that the federal government is not as generous as many private employers in paying for health insurance. Now how would I know that if Gilibrand's office won't give me those numbers? I'd also love to know what private employers they're talking about. Most I know of are decreasing benefits, increasing the employee share or outright dropping coverage. With few exceptions, the only people I know of who are getting decent health care coverage are employed by governments, (local, county, state and federal) or are teachers. In both cases the taxpayers are footing most of their costs for health insurance.

Locally we have Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (who's about as hawkish as you can get at the state level) saying that we should introduce health care reform “incrementally." This coming from a guy who as a result of 30+ years of being employed by the state as a legislator, has full health insurance coverage for which he pays little or nothing toward the cost. (As an aside, somewhat off the topic of peace: Tedisco, along with some other NYS Republican legislators, recently signed a promise not to raise NY taxes. That's like telling a drowning person that the water is not going to get any higher. Once you're drowning, the level of the water is a moot point. All I can say is Tedicso is losing his touch – he used to be a lot better at grandstanding than this!)

I'm not going to have health insurance next year. My husband's company is all but dropping coverage and none of the organizations I work for can afford to offer it. I should ask Tedisco which increment I should opt for first. Should I get coverage for emergencies or should I go for coverage for my chronic illness? Which one should I chose?

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had it right when he said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

Our nation spends more on our military than the next 49 countries combined.

Another word for “spiritual doom” is “hell."

I propose that we call Murphy and thank him for his part in leading us to that place that Rev. King so tenderly named.