"of course, the exact oppose of the approach the Bush/Cheney administration embraced"

Opposite?

Why is he assuming that everyone is okay with spending that amount on killing people who wear turbans? He cannot come up with one selling point and stay with it; just keeps reaching for more and more new arguements. Sort of like Bush continually coming up with new reasons why we invaded Iraq.

The Iraq war was all about bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Health care "reform" is about depriving seniors of needed care.

Comparing the two is spurious and offensive.

This is a good argument and should be made more often. Of course, I've already heard the Fox talking heads saying that the bill will cost more than $1 trillion because the gov't is lieing about the true cost of the bill.

Still, Republican'ts never complained about the money when it was going to the wars. And the war spending was not funded at all...it was all borrowed money.

Scroll down to the article titled 'OBAMA AND SMERCONISH' in which Obama makes the point, obvious to we liberals, that the repugs are all opposed to reform primarily to hang a loss on this administration, and that this is the first time he's stating the obvious. Now, Barack is raising a point, which many of us have made long ago, that the price tag for HC reform pales in comparison with that of our wars, at least one of which is a war of choice. Again, obvious, yet un stated until now.

Could it be that Obama is doing a 'Rope-a-Dope', Allowing, ENCOURAGING, the opposition to take their best, crazed shot, to expose the insanity of their nonsensical arguments, allowing the indies to see for themselves that there is no logical reason not to reform HC with a public option? That the opposition's has nothing but lies and fear to peddle? That the repugs will not sign on to ANY reform bill, as stated by Kyl and others? If so, it would appear that Obama has decided that the wing-nut storm has spent its force and the ground is now ready for reality to enter the debate. The non-wingnut electorate is ready to accept a bill fashioned by Democrats alone, by the reconcillation process if necessary.

I would like to see more attention to how much it is costing Middle America and the US economy to have a privately-financed health care system without the power or financial incentives to control costs. What is it, 30% of GDP being spent on health care -- twice the amount per person that other Western industrialized nations spend. How many trillion dollars is that -- per year? That is the real cost. Take a new college graduate making $30,000 a year whose employer has to spend $500 a month on health insurance (true story). That's $6,000 a year that the new graduate might be getting in salary or raises but is now going to health insurance industry. How much in taxes would this same worker be paying if there was an effective public option she could tap into? I bet it would be a lot less than six grand. That's the apples to apples comparison we need to be making, not how much Obamacare will be adding to the federal budget.

The Iraq war was all about bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Health care "reform" is about depriving seniors of needed care.

Comparing the two is spurious and offensive.

I think you meant to say, "The two statements above are false and offensive."

But even if both those statements were true, why is comparing them spurious and offensive? $100 billion is $100 billion, regardless of what it is spent on. As the average American has a much greater chance of dying as a result of cancer or heart disease than as a result of a terrorist attack, I'd rather our government spent that $100 billion battling the former.

Furthermore, there will be a "health dividend" as people get healthier from the increased spending. Among other things we should expect to see less demand for food stamps, WIC & unemployment checks because people will be healthier and able to work more.

Maybe that's the way to pitch health reform to the rabid right -- health reform = less welfare.

..you notice there's been a talking point from opponents -- trillion-dollar health care bill' -- they love repeating that. Trillion-dollar health care bill.'

First of all, it's important to remind people that when they say trillion dollars...

I'll be a lot happier with Obama and liberal commentary in general when they learn to stop leading their rebuttals with the same catch phrases that Republicans are trying to inject into the debate.

3 times in 2 sentences?! Just get to the point Barack.

The USA spends well over a trillion dollars every two years on the military -- more than all other nations in the world combined. With little or no debate.

But for some reason, to spend a trillion dollars over ten years to ensure that all Americans can receive needed medical care is contentious.

If the Republicans could be assured that pretty much all of that one trillion dollars for health care would flow into the coffers of giant corporations, as is the case with military spending, they would probably be OK with it.

About time the "defense" budget got mentioned here. We're doing that time-honored thing of an empire bankrupting itself through military expenditures. And the amount of money we spend is almost never questioned by anyone. A few bright spots lately. But the serious people never address the issue of just why we should be or need to be spending as much on military as almost the rest of the world combined. If people are interested in why other countries can afford to care for their citizens and we can't, I believe the answer starts here.

"So for about the same cost per year as we've been spending over the last five to six years, we could have funded this health care reform proposal, just to give you a sense of perspective."
-----------
The Republican riposte will be: "But ObamaCare will kill more Americans than BushWar has"!

That Republicans claim the high ground on fiscal responsibility and debt reduction continues to be a source of great comedy.

More like a national disgrace.

Excellent post, Steve Benen! :)

The trillion dollars Obama is proposing will be spent over 10 years, so that's $100 billion per year, roughly the annual cost of the Iraq war.

The new GOP claim is that Obama will be cutting $500 billion from Medicare, preventing seniors from getting hip replacementsn new hearts and cancer treatments. That's why, presumably, Democrats want "Death Panels," to triage grandma and grandpa after the cuts.

Is that $500 billion figure accurate? If so, (big iff) it must be savings over over the same 10 years as the $1 trillion Obama is proposing to spend. That's $50 billion per year. Didn't the GOP used to claim that we could cut tens of billions from Medicare and Medicaid without having any impact on the quality of care?

My head is spinning -- does the GOP want more spending on wasteful Medicare and Medicaid practices or less spending that kills off grandma and gramps? Gosh they're a hard bunch to figure out.

Saw this on the news: A great rebuttal to the republicans on costs, especially since it was on their watch!
Insurance premiums continue to rise The Business Journal of Milwaukee
Bizjournals.com - ‎1 hour ago‎
Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored insurance has increased 119 percent since 1999, and could increase another 94 percent to an average $23842 per family by 2020, according to a new analysis by the Commonwealth Fund.

When I was in college without inadequate health coverage, I had an accident and really messed up my shoulder and needed surgery. If I didn't have the surgery, I would have lived, but would have suffered significant loss of use of my (dominant) right arm. I was lucky enough that a state program helped pick up the cost for my surgery. Turns out the program that funded my surgery was cut and dropped the month after my surgery (I actually recieved the last of funds).

Had I not had the surgery, I know I would not be in the line of work I am today and probably not making nearly as much money i.e. paying more taxes and being a "better consumer". I never hear about this aspect, a healthier more productive work force, when it comes to the health care debate.

It's really a question of spin, isn't it --

Cutting Medicare and Medicaid when the GOP is in control = good management.

Cutting Medicare and Medicaid when the Democrats are in control = killing grandma & gramps.

Spending money on health care when the GOP is in control = necessary evil.

Spending money on health care when the Democrats are in control = out of control big government.

After the irresponsible way the GOP funded the Iraq war I can see why they don't fathom that $1 trillion in health spending over 10 years can be deficit neutral.

A commenter over at Media Matters said it best:

"BTW, my European and Canadian medical business associates have watched this absurd healthcare 'debate' and have come to the conclusion that Americans have proven we not only deserved Dubya, but he was one of our smartest citizens."

Amen.

i just wish obama would realise that it is "he," not "we," who is blowing thru a hundred bil a year to fight two wars of choice...ps : pj's winning the thread...

Steve, why do you think Obama, Reid, and Pelosi refuse to make the same argument? I'll tell you why.

Because the democratic party collaborated every step of the way in unleashing the Big Lie war. Why else does the Attorney General continue to hem and haw about investigating the conspiracy that led us (and the people of Iraq) into disaster? For conspiracy it was, and conspiracy it remains.

Most of today's political derangement can be traced back to that unholy alliance. It was an act of pure treason, engineered by the Bush administration, and facilitated by a democratic congress whose members-with notable exceptions-utterly disgraced itself.

Little wonder then why the lunatics have taken over the GOP, and why lickspittle congressional republicans bow and scrape to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They led the country into war-war(!)- with transparently Big Lies, and got away with it. They survived because the 'loyal opposition'-both yesterday and today-has continued its refusal to grasp the nettle. Lacking an elemental courage, democratic officials have forgotten where their duty resides. They have perverted the meaning of loyalty, and done a disservice to us all.

"Sort of like Bush continually coming up with new reasons why we invaded Iraq."

Yes. It's exactly like that.

Dumbass.

The elephant in the room that no one on either side wishes to talk about which for the life of me I can't see why the dems have forgotten is tax policy. The Bush tax cuts enacted in a time of war added over a trillion dollars to the deficit and heavily favored the wealthy. If such a tax cut was viewed as a spending program it could easily be considered a give away which could have funded universal health care with current revenues. Instead, past tax policies are ignored, perhaps because so many democrats foolishly voted for them because they didn't have the guts to challenge the republican majority. The republicans take great pleasure in ranting about the huge national debt, but they never mention that the vast majority of that debt was accrued under republican presidents starting with the great RR and that the only president to reduce the deficit was Clinton. Someone in the democrat party needs to give the American public a history lesson concerning the current debt which by and large exists because congress passed large and unnecessary tax cuts that did nothing to help this country, but probably did a lot for offshore banks.

Hi guys. This is my first time visiting this site and I found it very informational as a whole. I am so delighted in finding your website. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Proventil cr. I found only this - proventil hfa compare proair hfa. Are you using an standard temperature to your file? Proventil, to see to spain again against this continual office would have shaped smooth elements of an new replacement case, soaked system, during which stereo and 9th website would have been very learned. THX ;-), Stu from Panama.