We have money to spend for Iraq, so why not health care?

I just walked past people on Washington Street holding up protest signs saying something to the effect, "Say no to Obamacare" and "No to increasing the federal debt." To these people I have a question: Where were you when the U.S. invaded Iraq?

Where were you when the government bailed out the auto industry and Wall Street banks? Where were they when Congress enacted a Medicare drug benefit, which is simply a way to give government money to big pharmaceutical companies? Ask you doctor.

Government spending is always about priorities. We choose to fund some things and not others. What I don't understand is why the people who are so opposed to increased government spending on health care now said nothing about government spending over the last several years for other matters. Why would anyone think that paying the armed forces and private contractors to govern the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan is important, but paying for a neighbor here in Watertown to see a doctor is not? Do we love the Afghans and Iraqis more than we love Americans? Are they more entitled to the use of our tax money than we are?

What exactly about providing health insurance to all Americans and controlling the out-of-control premiums charged by private insurance conglomerates are the protesters opposed to? The only people benefiting from the private insurance mess we currently have are the executives of those companies. It's not you and me. By opposing health insurance reform, you are saying that the system should remain the way it is. That's just wrong. The system bankrupts people who get sick and rewards the wealthy. Why do the protesters want to continue the status quo?

Laura J. Bennett

Watertown