I agree with him on this issue. He did blame fiscal hawks and I don't know if that's true. There basically is no such thing as a fiscal hawk unfortunately and anyone who pretends to be one almost always supports troops and cops and first responders generally. I'd like to see the party make up of who didn't show up. As for fiscal hawkishness and this issue, even I as a libertarian and for funding their medical needs. It reminds me of the issue of the VA. To me the cost of running the VA is far less scary than an entity that is in control of our laws, with a monopoly on violence, that can make agreements and then just ignore them. To me that's a bigger form of government qualitatively than could exist by having to pay some medial bills. It's almost insane to me that the issue is legislated at all. You formed an agreement. If any corporation did they would be obligated to it. Similarly I think a government should be tight with its spending specifically so it can pay out when it's appropriate. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not appropriate and yet we have money for that. When government consumes a resource for a legitimate cause it should foot the bill. The resource consumed is human health, the legitimate cause is saving people trapped under a building. A worthy effort and a right choice. Now pay the balance of that activity. It's actually what government is for. Not for welfare, not for enforcing a retirement plan, not even for education. In fact I would say it's a bigger form of government that can expend resources and not pay for it. Especially something as serious as human health.