It would seem to be a slam dunk. Money spent on health care is largely spent in the good old US of A. A lot of products come from foreign sources, but much of the machinery and all of the labor is local. Almost as good a stimulus as construction, or infrastructure repair.

So what's the problem?

My guess is that it's not going into big ticket items such as aircraft carriers, $2 billion airplanes, submarines and other material which not only carry fantastic profits but are used to expand the empire.

The resistance to the DoD redoing the military to more easily meet todays threats is that it divides the money which goes to high-profit items with the more labor-intensive activities which are more effective against guerillas. That doesn't yield the profit.

The US lost a war in Vietnam and has lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because it has brought the wrong weapons to the wrong fight. Look at the average soldier in Baghdad - struggling under 80 pounds of equipment on a 12 hour patrol in 100 degree heat where he's simply a target and will retreat (yes, retreat, not surrender) back into a fortress that night. They are up against a barefoot guy with an AK-47. Who knows the area and has the support of the people. Who will be going home that night. There's something wrong with that idea, with the idea that a war can be won under those conditions.

Nope, as Eisenhower warned us, the military-industrial complex has take over and is running the show. Too bad Boeing and Company don't make more on medical equipment.

Arf