Inverted priorities

In Washington on Friday, while military officials announced that the Army would more than double the number of soldiers it is sending to West Africa to help contain the Ebola virus there, senior White House officials tried to play down the series of missteps in the handling of the Ebola case in Dallas. They insisted that the public health system in the United States was working effectively and would prevent an epidemic of the deadly virus from taking root in this country. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/us/containing-ebola-cdc-troops-west-africa.html?_r=0

i) Um…doesn't that risk exposing US soldiers to the deadly disease? And if they're infected, where will they be treated? Walter Reed? 

ii) This suffers from a fundamental inversion about what our armed forces are for. The US military exists to protect Americans and American assets. 

That's especially the case when the assignment puts our troops at risk of harm or death. National defense is an extension of self-defense. For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, it's the duty of a teenage son to protect his mother or younger brothers. He hazards his life to protect theirs. Family members have that duty to one another. 

Every soldier is someone's husband, father, son, or brother. A US president doesn't have the right to risk their life on behalf of someone who's not part of the social contract. An American soldier shouldn't have to die for a non-American–unless it's a military alliance. 

The principle of national defense involves reciprocity. I'm prepared to die for you if you're prepared to die for me. Pooling our collective resources for the common defense. It's for the benefit of people who have a stake in the system. Shared risk, shared reward. 

iii) On a related question: why are we even treating Duncan? Why should US hospitals supply free medical services for someone from another part of the world who decides to hop on a plane and come here? 

Yes, I know that sounds cruel, but there are 7 billion people on the planet. The US is not and cannot be a free health clinic for all the desperately ill people outside our borders (not to mention illegals inside our borders). We don't have the resources, and it's not our duty. 

Duncan is a looter. He's siphoning medical resources away from American families who've paid into the system. 

Consider the drain on hospital resources just to treat one Ebola patient. We can't have an open-door policy for anyone to hop on a plane and demand free medical services. 

I mean, who's footing the bill for Ducan's treatment? I assume the hospital will have to pass the cost along to paying customers. Keep in mind that Obamacare is already stressing a struggling healthcare system beyond the breaking point. 

It's different for the medical missionaries. They're Americans. And they're risking their lives to save lives. Duncan, by contrast, is risking lives to save his life. 

(Mind you, I think it would be more prudent to treat the medical missionaries on site.)