"... A reader would also search in vain for any talk of a "fiscal crisis" or a need to balance nuclear weapons priorities with available revenues. That same reader, of course, rarely has to venture past the first sentence of a health care reform story to find that the subject is a "trillion dollar overhaul." (Oh hold on, it gets better.)

They go on to note a proposal from Representative Blarney Frank (D Mass.) regarding what is being called the triad (Sends shivers down your spine doesn't it?) of warhead deployment systems; ground launched ICBMs, submarines equipped with nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs/missiles designed for deployment by stealth bombers:

Frank told HuffPost. "My radical proposal is that we say to the Pentagon that they can pick two of the three, and let us abolish one."

The article closes with this pearl:

"The amount that could be saved by cutting any of the three is likely much higher than the two largest ways Obama has identified to pay for health care reform..."

At the end of the HuffPo article is a poll: "Which one of the "triad" nuclear delivery systems should the U.S. eliminate?" So far, 27% of HuffPo's readers have chosen "All of them."

Aside from the vast differences in the costs of the two programs - around 29 billion dollars a year spent on nuclear weapons and Obamacare expected to cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years (that's 100 billion per year for those of you from Rio Linda) - what could possibly go wrong?

Update:

Know something funny? The Regime actually carried out this plan. Even I didn't think they were this crazy.

Source:

Unlike Health Care, When It Comes To Nukes, Cost Is No Object -- The Huffington Puffington Post

Related:

Obama must decide degree to which U.S. swears off nuclear weapons -- The Washington Post