BUDGET: If we can fund war, we can fund healthcare

Working in healthcare, I see the consequences of policy choices every day.

Patients delay care they can’t afford. Prescriptions go unfilled. Prior authorizations stall treatment. Even for those inside the system, access is complicated — sometimes out of reach.

Now we’re discussing cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — programs that millions rely on for basic care.

At the same time, policymakers argue we can afford hundreds of billions more for war, on top of an already staggering $800 - 900 billion annual defense budget.

Medicare and Medicaid together account for about $2 trillion in annual spending. These aren’t abstract line items — they are lifelines for seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families.

When we talk about cutting healthcare, we’re not trimming excess. We’re reducing real people’s access to care.

Some argue defense and healthcare are separate issues. But they are funded by the same taxpayers — who are being asked to accept less: fewer services, more barriers, higher out-of-pocket costs — while massive spending elsewhere moves forward with far less resistance.

This isn’t about choosing healthcare over defense. A functioning society needs both. It’s about consistency. If we truly value fiscal responsibility, all spending should face equal scrutiny.

A fraction of proposed military increases could meaningfully improve access to care — reducing delays, strengthening primary care, and easing administrative burdens. Instead, patients struggling for basic care are told there isn’t enough money.

Clearly, there is.

The real question is whether we are willing to prioritize the health of our own population with the same urgency we apply elsewhere.

TONYA COPPEDGE

Coeur d’Alene