The first cases of Ebola in the United States have raised legitimate concerns about the nation’s ability to protect the public’s health. And while the virus is incredibly toxic, the threat posed to Americans is – as yet – quite small.
The threat to the public’s confidence in its government, on the other hand, is quite serious.
Unfortunately, it shouldn’t be surprising that the federal government has stumbled in its first reactions to the threat. For decades, Americans have been told that its government is the problem. That taxation is unfair. And that the funding of public health programs is akin to socialism.
As a result, programs have been slashed and there has been an erosion of morale of those in government service. Why would people want to work in institutions that are routinely demonized?
Moreover, American support for international programs has also been reduced.
When the most recent Ebola outbreak started in Africa, few American policymakers called for action. It’s as if the suffering of Africans was of no concern. But the thousands of Ebola cases in Africa have spread into other continents as the numbers of those infected has grown. The more Africans that contract Ebola, the more likely it will spread.
Now that the United States has seen its first Ebola cases, the political grandstanding has started. But instead of carefully examining how to bolster the nation’s public health programs, or how to better strengthen the world’s collective response to this – and other – public health threats, leading elected officials are calling for closing the nation’s borders.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has suffered a $1billion cut in funding of its public health programs. New York State government has cut back its support for public health programs as well. Programs that not only help fight infectious diseases, like Ebola, but programs that fight cancer, Alzheimers, obesity, and lead poisoning have all been cut.
Despite their importance, why are these programs cut? They lack politically powerful constituencies. People don’t get mobilized for programs that prevent injuries or disease; people get mobilized when they are affected – not before. Thus, public health programs are too often first on the budget chopping block.
When society cuts funding for firefighting, or police, we know what will likely happen – more crime, more dangerous fires. The same is true when government cuts support for public health – more people will suffer from otherwise preventable illnesses.
And the funding for those programs comes from our taxes. Taxes are the cost of a civilized society. Without taxes, there can be no national defense, no protections from crime, no education, no programs for the needy, and no protections for the public health.
Of course, we should – and must – demand competence from our public officials. And we must demand reforms to ensure that governmental institutions are accountable to the public that they serve.
But the fundamental question before us as a nation is “What kind of society have we become?” Is our society one that values the health of its citizens? Is it a society that cares about not only its neediest of citizens, but also those around the globe who face unimaginable poverty and illness?
If we think that the answers are “yes,” then we should demand that our leaders act responsibly and compassionately. A responsible and compassionate society is willing to pay for programs that protect its citizens and that helps others.
A society that is unwilling to pay the taxes for those programs is one that may end up paying a more staggering price that results from failure to protect the public’s health.
The message to federal and state policymakers must be to enhance – not chop – public health programs.
Blair Horner is the Legislative Director of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.