Steve Kroft: You ran for this job, saying that you were not a big spending liberal, and that you were definitely, under no circumstances, a Socialist. And I know you inherited a unique set of circumstances. But in nine months you have effect nationalized two automobile companies, sections of the banking industry.

President Obama: Oh, wait, hold on, time out a second Steve, come on now.  Let’s think about it. On the banking issue, when I walked in, the banking system, the financial system was on the verge of collapse. And what have I done?  I’ve essentially taken the program that was voted on by the previous Congress, supported by the previous Republican President, and we’ve made it work.    So, that didn’t originate under my watch. 

With the auto companies, before I took office,  Uncle Sam was writing them billions of dollars worth of checks, without holding them accountable.   And what we said was, if you are going to get taxpayer money, then you’ve got to be accountable to taxpayers, by restructuring.

But what I think is a legitimate concern, because this did happen under my watch, is that we initiated a big recovery act:  800 billion dollars. And the reason we did so, is that every credible Democratic  and Republican economist, at the time that we came in, said that if we don’t have a stimulus of some sort, this is potentially going to get a lot worse.

Obama also claims that health care reform in the long run should not cost a dime more.  He asserts — somewhat correctly — that the most out of control spending in our budget, is on Medicaid and Medicare.  In 2005 for example, Medicare and Medicaid spending was projected at 481 billion dollars, more than on national defense and homeland security combined.    (And that’s not counting state Medicaid, over another 100 billion. ) These costs have been rising rapidly every year before and after, and are projected to continue to rise rapidly.

We also spend almost two times more per person on health care than any other industrialized nation in the world, but yet our overall rate of health care success is little better (and in some cases worse.)

The question is this: Do these current proposals cut waste, or simply expand the current system.

We think health insurance — at least health insurance that racks up enormous overhead, profits, paperwork, and other ”middleman” costs while covering most routine things that insurees could afford themselves (at least, could afford if they were not paying an arm and a let, so to speak, on health insurance), rather than just for true “security protection” catastrophic losses — is a big part of the problem. Not the solution.