American sponsored universal health care. Just not for Americans.

Last week, President Obama submitted a draft of an authorization of use of military force (AUMF) to Congress to approve the continued use of military force to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  The Administration contends that this AUMF is dissimilar to President Bush's 2001 AUMF in that it limits the use of military force to only three years. Regardless of its similarities or differences with the AUMF from almost fifteen years ago, if President Obama's proposal is authorized by Congress, its effects will likely be just as momentous.

You may be wondering what this has to do with health law or news, and why it is being discussed in a health law blog. Well, one of the results of the Iraq War (that was the result of Bush's AUMF) is one of infrequently less discussed issues in American health policy: universal health coverage for Iraq.

Section 31 of the Bush supported Iraqi Constitution states quite clearly that the state is responsible for providing every citizen with "the right to health care." In order to effectuate this right, President Bush and his Administration budgeted $950 million dollars in 2003 for the development of this universal health care system.  This funding of close to a billion dollars was part of Bush's push for the development of infrastructure in Iraq, and also to counteract the 90 percent cut in public health funding Saddam Hussein made during his last decade in power.

The funding largely went towards the construction of medical facilities, as well as providing vaccinations and other pharmaceutical products.  Tommy Thompson, The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services at the time, explained that such funding was appropriate for Iraq but not the United States. He stated that even if you don't have health insurance in America "you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage."

Regardless of  the reasoning and purpose of the 950 million dollars, and whatever your political persuasion, it's quite interesting that the United States Government was willing to fund universal health care for Iraqis, and yet such a program for United States citizens wouldn't be possible even in President Obama's wildest dreams.

While a similar universal health care plan is not likely to result from the conflict emerging from President Obama's AUMF, the possibility is still there.  This is particularly true if ISIL becomes entrenched in one specific country where the United States deems more infrastructure is needed.  Such a plan would certainly come under more scrutiny post-Obamacare, and would probably not gain the quick approval Bush's universal health care funding for Iraq received back in 2003.

Such funding in the past and its possibility in the future raises the question - why is universal health care appropriate for Iraqis, and not for Americans?