Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support

Opinion

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support
black and gray stethoscope

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met this week at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It linked 25 unverified reports of child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines as they consider further limiting access to this and other immunizations, like those for hepatitis B and MMRV. But they aren’t just playing politics. They are gambling with a quiet system that keeps Americans alive.

This latest attempt to undermine public health comes on top of the termination of thousands of federal health workers and more than $11 billion in grants that fund lifesaving research and community programs.


Public health isn’t just about pandemics, and cutting funding hurts everyone.

The U.S. already invests far more in treatment than in prevention. Less than 3% of health spending is allocated to public health prevention efforts, while the rest is spent on costly medical care after people are already sick.

Cutting public health prevention is like skipping routine maintenance on a bridge: you save money in the short term, but eventually the bridge collapses under the stress.

People in the U.S. are living longer than they did a century ago. In the early 1900s, you were lucky to make it to your 50th birthday. Cemeteries across the country are dotted with headstones of children who died in infancy or early childhood from infectious diseases rarely reported today.

In 2025, the average life expectancy is 78 years, and most children grow up to become parents themselves. This was no happy accident. This was public health.

Other nations have taken this lesson further. Countries like Japan, Denmark, and Australia, which invest more heavily in public health prevention, not just medical care, experience longer life expectancies at a fraction of the cost of the U.S.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet it ranks behind its peers in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy. The difference is public health.

Clean air and water, food that’s safe to eat, seatbelts, and airbags? Public health. From modern sanitation practices to reduced smoking rates, from fluoridated drinking water that prevents tooth decay to the worldwide eradication of smallpox—it’s all public health.

The notion that this country no longer needs public health because people are living longer, healthier lives is exactly backward. Those longer, healthier lives are evidence that public health initiatives are effective. When public health is working, “nothing” happens: disease and death are prevented, and people go about their lives without thinking about what might have been.

That invisibility is part of what made this country’s public health system a fragile and susceptible target. When administrations cut back on public health, the consequences only become visible after the damage is done.

But these recent attacks on public health aren’t abstract. They will translate directly into illness, death, and the loss of hard-won progress. It is already visible: the U.S. is currently experiencing the largest outbreak of measles in more than 30 years, the result of fewer children being vaccinated against the disease.

Public health hasn’t always gotten it right. But the solution to imperfection is not destruction. It is a stronger investment, better accountability, and broader reach.

The dismantling of public health that is unravelling in real time may feel like political theater, but the stakes are measured in lives. When you roll back vaccination programs, children die of preventable diseases. When you slash research funding, cures and treatments never materialize. When you gut local health departments, outbreaks spread unchecked.

Public health is everywhere and everything. It’s in every clean glass of water, every road trip made safer by seatbelts and airbags, every child who grows up without fear of polio. Weakening it doesn’t just roll back “government spending.” It rolls back decades of progress and exposes us all to risks we thought we had left behind.

The lesson of history is simple: investing in public health saves lives. The question now is whether policymakers will remember that lesson in time or only after citizens have paid the price.

Each individual can take action now: vaccinate your family, support your local health departments, and speak out against disinformation. Public health is our shared safety net, and protecting it is the responsibility of us all. Contact your representatives and urge them to protect funding for public health. Our lives depend on it.

Rachel Hoopsick, PhD, MS, MPH, MCHES, is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois.

Read More

Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who thinks Republicans will suffer in the 2026 midterms? Republican members of Congress

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA); House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025,.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Who thinks Republicans will suffer in the 2026 midterms? Republican members of Congress

The midterm elections for Congress won’t take place until November, but already a record number of members have declared their intention not to run – a total of 43 in the House, plus 10 senators. Perhaps the most high-profile person to depart, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, announced her intention in November not just to retire but to resign from Congress entirely on Jan. 5 – a full year before her term was set to expire.

There are political dynamics that explain this rush to the exits, including frustrations with gridlock and President Donald Trump’s lackluster approval ratings, which could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills
In swing states, both parties agree on ideas to save Social Security
JJ Gouin/Getty Images

Social Security Still Works, but Its Future Is Up to Us

Like many people over 60 and thinking seriously about retirement, I’ve been paying closer attention to Social Security, and recent changes have made me concerned.

Since its creation during the Great Depression, Social Security has been one of the most successful federal programs in U.S. history. It has survived wars, recessions, demographic change, and repeated ideological attacks, yet it continues to do what it was designed to do: provide a basic floor of income security for older Americans. Before Social Security, old age often meant poverty, dependence on family, or institutionalization. After its adoption, a decent retirement became achievable for millions.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Texas’ Housing Changes Betray Its Most Vulnerable Communities
Miniature houses with euro banknotes and sticky notes.

How Texas’ Housing Changes Betray Its Most Vulnerable Communities

While we celebrate the Christmas season, hardworking Texans, who we all depend on to teach our children, respond to emergencies, and staff our hospitals, are fretting about where they will live when a recently passed housing bill takes effect in 2026.

Born out of a surge in NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) politics and fueled by a self-interested landlord lawmaker, HB21 threatens to deepen the state’s housing crisis by restricting housing options—targeting affordable developments and the families who depend on them.

Keep ReadingShow less