The Washington Monthly

August 27, 2009

DEFICITS AND HEALTH CARE REFORM.... After an eight-year hiatus, deficit reduction matters to Republicans again. Why the party that turned a quarter-trillion dollar surplus into a $1.2 trillion deficit thinks it has credibility on the subject is a mystery. That the party that put two wars and Medicare expansion on future generations' tab pretends to care about fiscal responsibility at all is rather comical.

But pretend they do. This week, for example, Rep. Dave Camp (R) of Michigan, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, responded to the mid-session budget review by insisting, "[I]f the House Democrats' unaffordable $1 trillion health care bill wasn't dead before, it should be now."

That, of course, doesn't make sense. Unlike the Republican policies of the Bush-era, the Democratic health care bill would be paid for, not added to the debt. What's more, as Ezra Klein explained, "Camp's argument boils down to the idea that big deficits mean we can't spend money. But he's not saying that 'if the $541.1 billion the military has requested in 2009 wasn't dead before, it should be now.' Nor is he saying that 'if the extension of President Bush's tax cuts wasn't dead before, it should be now.' Both of those comments would actually make more sense, as neither expenditure is revenue neutral. But Camp's comment isn't about the deficit. It's about killing health-care reform."

But if Camp's comment were about the deficit, he'd nevertheless have it backwards. Tim Fernholz argues this week that if policymakers are serious about improving the budget outlook, health care reform is the solution.

[Budget expert Stan Collender] is right that a deficit-neutral health-care bill will, by definition, have no direct effect on future government deficits and debt. But look more closely, and it becomes apparent that health-care reform will have major effects on decreasing deficits over the long term, when spending discipline is actually important....
The people standing directly in the way of health-care reform are conservative Democrats who claim to be deficit hawks, like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad in the Senate and the Blue Dogs caucus in the House. Of late, however, their interest in cutting the deficit has been eclipsed by political cowardice in the face of unified Republican obstruction to any and all reform efforts. The stumbling efforts of these supposed paragons of fiscal responsibility to maneuver the politics of health-care reform have decreased the chances of a bill that would reduce the deficit over the long term.

So get it straight: If the latest budget projections are keeping you up at night, the best way to ease your troubled mind is to support health-care reform. Otherwise, costs will keep rising, and deficits along with them. Opportunities to improve health care only come along once in a while -- the last major effort was 15 years ago. Fifteen years from now, it's possible that nearly one-quarter of every dollar spent in the U.S. will be spent on health care -- much of that coming, directly or indirectly, from the government. That sounds fiscally responsible, doesn't it?

Something for Dave Camp and his cohorts to keep in mind.

—Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

Comments

Two lessons from the Bush administration:

1. Deficits don't matter
2. It's our due

Posted by: km on August 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's "cohort" not "cohorts". Not the same as "accomplices"

Posted by: Kyron Huigens on August 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

In addition to tax cuts and military spending, we should also remember that these "fiscal conservatives" (i.e. Republicans and Blue Dogs) support huge agricultural subsidies for billion dollar corporations (among many other kinds of corporate welfare) and they fight like crazy against ending such programs whenever the idea is raised (note they argued against Obama's attempt during the budget debate to cut agricultural subsidies by a mere $17 billion).

Posted by: Chris on August 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Something for Dave Camp and his cohorts to keep in mind."

Mr. Benen, you are polite to a fault (and to a bunch of Asswipes-(R))

The only thing Republicans have "in mind" is serving themselves and their paymasters, errr, "campaign contributors."

Honesty? Thoughtfulness? Logic? Irony? I really think that Republicans have tossed all of these concepts out, replacing them with fear, hatred, lies and hypocrisy.

But thanks for your continued exposure of the above statement.

Posted by: BuzzMon on August 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Killing health care reform mortally wounds the Democratic Party. Lack of financial resources continues to feed the economic disparity until the have-a-bits have nothing and work until their dead. Middle class shrinks until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub. Defense budget continues to increase while public education is starved and other public services are starved. Empire becomes too big to manage. USA implodes. The commons are sold off for profit. Totalitarian/authoritarian/plutocracy/feudal system (pick one) ensues. Mission accomplished. Or is that wa-a-a-a-ay too tinfoil-y for you?

Posted by: VaLiberal on August 27, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

What's on the minds of modern-day health care reform obstructionists? Maybe something along these lines: Huge deficits are only ok if you use your resources to kill and mame our designated enemies, but surely deficits are not ok if you are trying to sustain a healthier disposition among all Americans.

Yes, the resisters can be summed up as Deficits for Death are good, deficits for health are bad! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on August 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Every Democratic president since WWII has been able to reduce the national debt when measured as a fraction of GDP during his term in office. Eisenhower and Nixon are the only GOP presidents to do so. Expecting a Republican handle money wisely is like expecting a hog to ride a bicycle.

Posted by: rk on August 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, pehaps Mr. Benen is just too polite to call Rep. Camp what he really is: a liar; you know, like in that old nursery rhyme:
"Republican, Republican, pants on fire".
Odd, it doesn't scan properly...

Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

The Obama Administration purchased $41.6 Billion in preferred AIG stock which is valued at $6 Trillion today.....
(AIG was $0.35 per share. Now it's $52.00 a share)

Why is there no money for healthcare?

Posted by: Daniel Hall on August 28, 2009 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Starting Universal National Health Care grew a bombed out, bankrupt Britain out of WW2's ruin.

Britain began it's Universal National Health Care System immediately after World War II when most of it's building's laid in bombed out ruins and it was incredibly bankrupt.

The Universal National health Care system catalyzed the nation causing economic growth with the training of huge numbers of new doctors and medical personnel and the huge growth of the medical economy.

Universal National Health Care helped lift Britain out of economic collapse. There was no "option".

The time for US National Health Care is NOW partly BECAUSE we are in an economic crisis. Universal National Health Care will be the economic recover engine that causes the high wages jobs and taxable business growth we so desperately need.

Would you rather have an economy based on pushing fraudulent paper on Wall Street or one rebuilt on growth in medical technology and personnel fueled by a large new demand driven expansion of the high tech, high wage job medical industry?

And centralized medical procedure cost controls actual INCREASE innovation.
In Japan they actually set maximum prices (but not rations) for certain medical procedures such as MRI's. This prompted Japanese technology companies to redesign the MRI so it could be made more cheaply to increase profits. This resulted in LESS MORE MRI's being made available not less. The resulting Japanese MRI machines are so much cheaper and more effective than previous US MRI machines that the Japanese MRI is now taking over the market in other countries like the United States where it out competes US designed MRI's which had virtually no cost pressures due to our skewed healthcare system which now excludes the demand of millions of those patients who have lower incomes.

Now is the time for Universal National Health Care with procedural cost controls and no rationing of treatment.
There IS NO "OPTION."

vivzizi

Posted by: vivzizi on August 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

designer ambition table watershed stalin future problematic blister stirlandii sherbrooke