Yep:

The people who are sagely advising that America can't afford to provide basic health care to most Americans, and especially to the poorest Americans, all have the best possible health care and health insurance available — and often, it's health care provided by public funds. The people who are advising that America must keep borrowing and spending to continue waging wars in the Middle East do not themselves have to worry about ever going abroad to be put in harm's way, nor are they likely to have children and other close relatives who are asked to risk their lives in this way.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that these two groups are almost identical. People who enjoy the best health care available and who don't have to risk their lives in foreign wars have declared it a "luxury" for others to enjoy even basic health care. It's not a "necessity" that large numbers of Americans be protected from preventable deaths due to illness or injury, but it is a necessity that an uncertain but certainly smaller number of Americans be protected from unknown, dubious threats. Both positions weight the cost and suffering towards the poorest Americans while the richest Americans can sit back, enjoy what they have, and be entertained by the others' war exploits.

At least the Roman coliseum was open to everyone, and even the emperors recognized the value of ensuring everyone had bread.