Also something about someone saying they needed some 500K troops to occupy the place and only given 150K + 80K mercs instead, but

Difference is that the CBO's numbers reflect the cost of public HC that is suppposed to help ordinary people not blow'em up real good in a shooting war.

Helping people isn't the GOP's and Blue Dog's way.

What really disgusts me about my country is the ease with which we can spend trillions of dollars on ways and means to kill and destroy, but we can't afford health insurance and health care for everyone in the USA. This fact alone, and it's not an observation - it's a fact - is what feeds my pessimism about the future of the USA.

Once again republicans prove that they don't understand basiic math.
Does anyone remember when George bush scoffed at John Kerry during the presidential debates when Kerry said the war would cost well over 300 billion dollars. Bush sarcastically pointed out that it wouldn't cost over 50 billion. Although this isn't close to reality on either persons part it is another example of the inability of republicans to grasp basic math.

That was different.

And you are surprised Republicans are inconsistent in their positions because ... ?

casts Republican credibility on CBO estimates in an interesting light six years later.

What interesting light? Are we supposed to follow one expensive mistake proposed by Republicans with a different expensive mistake proposed by Democrats?

Wars are temporary.
Entitlements are forever.

And you are surprised Republicans are inconsistent in their positions because ... ?

Nobody's surprised, but such inconsistency is the bread and butter of Political Animal. Therefore each time it comes up Steve Benen does us the favor of pretending to be confused and earnestly trying to sort out how those well-meaning Republicans could be changing their tune so suddenly.

If he just posted these items as, "GOP INCONSTENCY #294820:...." and then the facts, there'd be little new for us to read.

@mwl,

Ah yes, but the bills and the mental/physical damage done to the servicemen and women from war is pretty much forever. The US STILL hasn't fully paid down the debts incurred by World War 2 nor has started to pay off the 4 Trillion in debt generated by the development of the nuclear arsenal, supersonic flight, missiles, bombers and all those pretty warships built during the Cold War.

You sound like one of those dummies who thinks that the costs of war end when the war does.

@ Former Dan

The cost of providing for tens of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan survivors and disabled veterans is far, far less than the cost of providing for tens of millions of citizens who can't afford, or can't be bothered to buy, their own health insurance.

You seem to believe that the technologies developed during the Cold War have no value. You discount the value of deterrence against our enemies. Those weapons were never used, yet our mere possession of them kept us safe.

"Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." --Sun Tzu

@mwl,
The healthcare costs of veterans is much higher than the average person due to the extent of the injuries suffered. Head traumas (leading wound in Iraq and Afghanistan) are notoriously expensive and require extensive rehab. To say this is cheap? It's not, however it is a responsibility that the state must pay for sending these men and women in harm's way.

The fact that if REGULAR people get some kind of care, you won't have as many expensive cancer treatments or extensive surgery and a much healthier overall population. They will become much more productive citizens.

BTW, military investments have a piss poor economic return. Basically you get your money back. Money invested in the civilian sector returns 4-6 times your investment. If the military sector were such an economic benefit then why did the USSR which spent almost 50% of its GDP on military spending economically collapse? Why did Sparta collapse? Why didn't Imperial Japan win in WW2? Why didn't Nazi Germany for that matter?

Why this reluctance to spend on the people? Healthcare really isn't an entitlement, it's a necessity. National security isn't JUST the number of bombs and warships and bombers. It's also the health of your population. Hint, a major reason why the USSR collapsed was due to the poor health of the population from unregulated pollution from industrial/military/nuclear sources. Killed that oh so important economic productivity. Don't take care of your people and they won't take care of the state.

BTW, even Sun Tzu figured that war isn't cheap. The costs of war are ongoing and no one benefits except the weapons makers.

Let me get this straight ..

The CBO says that the federal budget is unsustainable ...
... and now you show me that the CBO has a history of low-balling spending estimates.

So by extension, the $1 trillion price tag for health care reform should be about $5 trillion ?

One hell of a way to prove your point.

@ Former Dan,

The increased cost of care for disabled veterans vs. the general population does not overcome the difference in numbers. In the 2008 budget, the tab for VA (covering all living discharged veterans, not just Iraq and Afghanistan veterans) was $37B, while the tab for Medicare was $325B, the tab for Medicaid was $186B, and SCHIP was $5B. How much more expensive would coverage for all citizens and legal residents be?

I'm sure we agree that we, as a nation, owe it to our veterans to provide whatever health care and rehabilitation they need. Where we differ is in that I believe that the cost of extending equivalent care to the general population is prohibitive, whereas you believe that we can sacrifice military spending to achieve that goal.

Nor do I believe that British- or Canadian-style single-payer health care is the answer; the prospect of having to queue for treatment for progressive diseases like cancer horrifies me. Never mind the prospect of government bureaucrats checking my donation records on opensecrets.org before approving my care...and it's naive in the extreme to believe that such abuses could never occur.

Military investments may return less than civilian investments in the marketplace, yet your civilian investment returns NOTHING if the business in which you invested becomes a smoking crater. Security has a cost, which is offset not by return, but by the lack of loss.

Consider Libya's abandonment of its WMD program. Qaddafi gave it up voluntarily, and we never had to fire a shot (or at least, not since 1981).

Interesting aside to this is that the VA can not bill Medicare for care given to veterans by the VA. A staffer in the enrollment office at Portland's VA, told me a lot of financial problems could be solved if the VA could bill for services of veterans who are on Medicare B. But, as he said, "The government can't bill itself".

"...Security has a cost, which is offset, not by return, but by the lack of loss." mwl @ 3:40 PM.
Healthcare has a cost, which is offset, not by return, but by the lack of loss.
Insurance is insurance, whether for fire, war or health.
Dolt.

@mwl,

BTW, I happen to be "suffering" under Canadian Healthcare. I have a choice of what doctors I want to see. When I have to deal with an Ministry of Health bureaucrats it is less intrusive than some accountant telling me what I can and can't have (I have friends in the States telling all about it.) As for ques. Well, it's a line up. First come, first serve.

It's like any service.

Everything you RW wingnuts bitch about in our healthcare is exactly what you deal with in yours. Line ups at the emergency rooms. Bureaucrats rationing your healthcare (so that the CEO can make bank). And bureaucrats doing a metaphorical prostate exam on you to have any reason to deny you care. No, single payer isn't perfect, but at least here, we don't have people dying all the time because they don't have insurance.

subordinate membership integrating sciencec district dojs paroxetine viable