I'm not sure about how much money they've spent in war as a result of the 9/11 attacks, but it seems to be a few trillions. I'm even less sure about how much lives would they have saved if they would have spent all that money in public health care, but perhaps someone else could give me a better idea. I'm sure there is some way to get an approximate number.
My guess is that a lot more lives than the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks. And even more if you also subtract the lives that were actually lost in war from the number of lives that are being potentially saved by war. If so, and as a secondary question, which arguments do politicians who supported war but not Obama's health reforms use? I'm sure there are plenty who do so, but this seems to me as a solid argument against supporting one and not the other since both things are promoted as ways of saving lives.
I doubt this is the first time this point is made. I'm really not much into politics and I'm sure there's already been a lot of debate around this, so I'd like to have a better idea of how is this aspect of the debate being handled on both sides.
Note that I'm not attempting to start a debate here, just get to know the main points that are currently made by politicians who are against Obama's health reform but who also support war.