This made me wonder:
Yesterday saw some rare good news on the health-care front, with the stealth Democratic plan to move $247 billion in ObamaCare costs off the books collapsing in the Senate on a procedural vote of 47 to 53. Maybe there’s more anxiety among Democrats about a huge permanent increase in government health spending than the White House is willing to let on.
A dozen Democrats (plus independent Joe Lieberman) voted against Majority Leader Harry Reid’s gambit, which would have superseded automatic cuts in Medicare payments to doctors scheduled for 21% next year and higher after that. Democrats had included this fix as part of “comprehensive” reform but that pushed costs too high, while President Obama is insisting on a bill that doesn’t increase the deficit on paper.
So Mr. Reid’s inspiration was to decouple these payments from ObamaCare as stand-alone legislation, while hoping everyone ignored the phony budget math. The media did mostly ignore this subterfuge. But enough Republicans developed enough backbone that they spooked Democrats like North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, who for once stood by their supposed deficit-hawk convictions. Notwithstanding the anesthetizing effect of Congress’s now-routine trillion-dollar cost estimates, more than a few Democrats are still capable of sticker shock.
Does anyone remember any op-eds from the WSJ regarding sticker shock for the war in Iraq or the prescription drug plan? I’m honestly asking, because there may have been.
It just sort of cracks me up that one party is basically allowed to do whatever they want, no matter the damage it does to the budget, while another party tries to do the right thing budget wise, and it is continuously used against them.
Fulcanelli
Iraqi oil will pay for the war, which will last only six months, remember?
Zifnab
Back in ’01, there were a number of budget defectors that rebelled against the Bush Tax Cuts. Most notably – John McCain.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/04/john-mccain/mccain-used-to-oppose-tax-cuts/
And when Medicare Part D came up for a vote, DeLay had to do a lot of arm twisting and cajoling after a 3 hour open vote (the traditional voting time being 15 minutes, I believe) to ram through the drug bill.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/22/2314
Depending on where you were, that was big news. But on the pages of the WSJ? I can’t find anything.
MikeJ
I just love the fact that they think calling it Obamacare will make it or him more unpopular. It seems more likely the Obama magic will rub off on it and make health care reform more popular.
Valdivia
Not only that it is worth reading Ezra Klein on this because the vote was about something else entirely and the reps are stupid enough nit to notice.
calipygian
You dont get it, do you John?
Jon Kyl is a despicable motherfucker.
Ash Can
This is the same WSJ that hounded Clinton continuously and would have driven him from office singlehandedly if they could. Budget surplus? Economic expansion? Prosperity? Who cares? There’s a Democrat to be bashed!
The WSJ op-ed writers in general don’t give a damn about sound fiscal policy. They say they do, but they’re lying through their teeth. Don’t believe a word of it.
Gotta Ask Why
ditto Valdivia
Fulcanelli
@MikeJ: Good point.
IfWhen it does pass with a decent public option, possibly coupled with the State opt-out provision, which seems to be gaining popularity with recalcitrant Dems, watching what happens in (red?) states that do opt-out will be very interesting.Will the lower income and poorer folks who can’t afford insurance move out of states that opt-out?
A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
beltane
To question the cost of the Iraq war was to be a terrorist sympathizer. And to question the cost of the Medicare prescription plan while our leader was engaged in fighting the Global War on Terror was a deeply unpatriotic act. That pretty much sums up all of American history between the years 2001-2009.
calipygian
I HOPE HOPE HOPE for an Opt-Out public option, not only for the popcorn value, but dumb motherfuckers like Bobby Jindal are going to have to put their fucked up, Randian economic models above basic humanity, exposing the Republican Party and the Tea Bagger movement for the monstrous fucks they are.
A Opt-Out option will keep the Republicans out of power for a generation.
Zifnab
@calipygian: What absolutely floors me is the short sighted stupidity. Kyl supports military spending because it drives money into his state. It creates jobs and pays salaries and generally helps drive the economy.
Health care spending would do exactly the same thing in terms of economic benefit. A government dollar spent on a doctor’s bill isn’t any different than a dollar spent on a bullet or a bomb. It’s all money into the economy. It’s all good for your state.
Universal Health Care is good for the economy. It’s good for businesses – large and small. It’s good for employers and employees. There is absolutely no reason Kyl couldn’t be getting the same support (and kickbacks) from doctors and hospitals as he gets from military contractors and insurance giants. The political rationale for war spending is thin, and only the sheer volume of cash flooding into the enterprise makes it viable.
This isn’t just greedy and heartless, it’s very short sighted and dumb. :-p
calipygian
But, it doesn’t take into account the central tenet of contemporary conservatism –
Never, ever allow someone somewhere get any sort of government benefit that they may not deserve.
Especially those browner than me people.
General Winfield Stuck
I still think the Bushies got away with a lot bad legislation due to a 9-11 traumatized nation and a press that bought into the faux patriotism wingnuts are good at selling. And I wouldn’t exactly say it didn’t cost them dearly, at least at the ballot box. But the soaring hypocrisy they demonstrate daily is simply breathtaking.
I want stuff paid for at least on paper, which will keep inevitable over runs to a minimum in real world application. But the recent fiscal religion by wingnuts is stunning in it’s sociopathy for lack of self examination. Sen. Alexander was on the Senate floor this morn touting the vote as a kind of attempted economic coup by Harry Reid because it wasn’t paid for, and some kind of broad litmus test of fail for HCR be dems in general, which will be paid for, and will include a one year fix for Medicare Reimbursements.
They GOP has nothing but incessant wanking on conservative economic principles they thoroughly rejected for 8 years in a mad grab to enrich themselves and their buds. Malignant Greed was the great triumph of the Conservative Movement, and it will be awhile till that memory fades.
General Winfield Stuck
Geesh, I think I broke my own record for typos.
PeakVT
Does anyone remember any op-eds from the WSJ regarding sticker shock … the prescription drug plan?
The sticker shock became a feature, not a bug, once Medicare was barred from negotiating lower prices. So if the WSJ editors were against part D at some point, they probably came around.
On Iraq and defense and security in general, spending has increased so much that we could (by my guestimate) build out an entire high-speed rail network in the US with this year’s defense spending alone. That’s most likely a feature, not a bug, as well.
anonevent
@Fulcanelli: No. They’re poor. They either cannot afford to move or are too poor to see that they’re states are fucked up anyway. They’re state opting out of health care will not change that.
@Zifnab: Yes, but it’s not good for keeping the serfs under your thumb.
Fulcanelli
@General Winfield Stuck:
Herein lies, for me at least, the most infuriating part of the whole ‘regime change’ that happened in last November 4th:
Watching these assholes do a 180 from all the reprehensible, irresponsible, unconstitutional shit they did for the last 8 years and scurry back in the self serving, hypocritical sphincter hole they call “conservative principles”.
It would be a fucking joke except the economy’s trashed and so many have paid with their lives, no less.
Barney Frank seems to be the only one that calls them on it while the fainting goats in the Village just hold their cheeks open a little wider and type faster.
Savage Henry
@Fulcanelli
They won’t move out because they are poor and can’t. However, when they see that other poor people get healthcare and they don’t, they’ll vote for any politician that vows to end the opt-out. Some red states are going to turn very purple.
A government option with opt-out could literally be the end of the GOP. The GOP representatives will either have to ultimately have to end the opt-out themselves or end up losing their seats. Its like those fiscal conservatives that voted against the stimulus but are now celebrating the amount of federal dollars that they have brought into their district.
It would be a potential death blow for the Dems. The GOP knows it and they are going to turn it up to 19 to try to stop it.
Get your popcorn ready.
You are right. Get your popcorn ready.
Savage Henry
*&#$)#*! Typos!
anon
It’s kind of amazing that the entire DC press corps has failed to notice David Leonhardt’s article in which he actually read CBO reports and found out that the vast majority of our budget deficit was due to the recession or to Bush’s fiscal policies. Less than 10% of it was Obama’s policies–almost all of which were short-term spending which every economist agrees is exactly what a sane government should be doing in a crushing recession when you’ve dropped interest rates to zero and monetary policy has failed. Bush’s deficits, on the other hand, were the result of tax cuts passed during an economic expansion and two expensive wars–economically indefensible.
And, on healthcare, we know exactly how Republicans pay for reform–they DON’T! The Medicare drug benefit is currently slated to cost $1 Trillion over the next 10 years and not a nickel of it was paid for. That’s MORE than Obama’s reforms over the next 10 years–and it’s all deficit!
I don’t expect regular citizens to focus on this, but really, is it too much to ask that the Washington Post actually notice that Republican health reform casually added $1T to the deficit, while Democrats are absolutely killing themselves to get this thing to balance in the first 10 years? And that the Republicans label these responsible efforts as “killing grandma?”
I’m simply amazed that the beltway is stupid enough to believe that “willing to piss on powerless people” is fiscal responsibility. It’s not. At all.
SimplyOn
See here for one of Ezra Klein’s explanations of this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/a_proud_bipartisan_tradition_o.html
Rick Taylor
Yeah I’ve noticed that. The big example was Alan Greenspan pushing the Clinton administration to raise the regressive payroll tax. Then under Bush he gave a green light to tax cuts because of the danger of a growing surplus. Then when deficits reappeared, he called for cutting social security benefits.
Before that, I considered myself a Democrat who believed in fiscal responsibility. Afterwards, I realized that was just another name for a chump. The villagers wringing their hands about fretting about deficit spending and the unwillingness of Democrats be fiscally responsible might want to consider that.
Rick Taylor
This article is a must read on this topic.
The GOP has been primarily responsible for the budget deficit, and has no ideas for how to reduce it, but as they’re out of power they can now preen and pose as the party of fiscal responsibility.
Marcus
I like the rebranding of “Obamacare”. There is a second name coming out for it now: Medicare part ‘E’, for Everyone. Either way, it is a win in my book, since the R’s are going to look bad on this issue. It’s been approximately 122 days since the R’s announced they’d present a better and cheaper plan than the D’s, but I’ve yet to see it…
RememberNovember
money’s no object when it comes to “pertectin the homeland ‘ginst terrists”…note that the two latest terrorist foils came from WITHIN the US, by average-paid police and gov’t agents. Not exactly breaking the bank with Predator drones and F 22 boondoggles.
Svensker
There were no editorials warning against the costs of going to war in the WSJ. I was a Republican at the time, very opposed to the war, and was waiting for all the “fiscal conservatives” to start screaming about the cost. Didn’t hear any screams (except from a few stalwart libertarians and those not in the WSJ) — although in fairness the screams could have been drowned out by all the clapping and fapping going on.
jl
WSJ editorial is dishonest. The formulas for Medicare physician reimbursement often increase costs above what is considered a sustainable growth rate in spending needed to control deficits. This issue has to be dealt with periodically, regardless of health care reform.
That is shorter Ezra Kelin, linked to by commenter above.
rachel
@Marcus: Rep. Alan Grayson explained the Republican plan a couple of weeks ago.
Mike G
This isn’t just greedy and heartless, it’s very short sighted and dumb.
You just summed up the Repig party of 2009.
Reason60
Sigh.
John, John, John. When will you ever learn?
Let me provide you an analogy:
1,000 calories of granola is not fattening, since granola is a good thing, healthy for you and all that.
1,000 calories of cake is fattening, since cake is sweet and therefore a bad thing.
Massive deficits from health care or infrastructure spending is a waste of tax dollars;
Massive deficits from military spending stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
Martian Buddy
@Marcus:
They changed their tune on that (surprise, surprise.) Instead of a competing plan, they’re now going to “improve” the health care bill–in other words, strip out the meat and lace it with poison pill amendments. The Party of Ideas, doing what they do best.
Brian J
You have to wonder whether they don’t object to what Republicans do because they ultimately agree with their plans, even if they don’t like the consequences, temporary or not. Do people like the writers at The Wall Street Journal editorial page really believe the bullshit they print about tax cuts and everything else, or do they purposely print nonsense in the hopes of getting tax cuts rammed through because they believe, no matter what the case, the less money the government has, the better?
But regardless, it’s bizarre that most others still remain shocked when the Democrats try to do the right thing, like presenting the budget honestly, and the Republicans act as if things are much worse than they were. You’d think that those who are supposed to be paying attention would start to take the Republicans a little less seriously after seeing these shenanigans, but apparently not.
Brian J
Yes, yes it will. Not so much in the bluer states with Republican governors, like Connecticut, but I’m curious what will happen in Louisiana or Texas. It’d be pretty sweet if these people got a public option and those who opposed it were swept out of office. Two birds, one stone.
Besides, if nothing else, there’s the possibility that costs could be lowered in states without the public option if enough states do opt in.
Brian J
There are seemingly plenty of ways to have legitimate concerns about the deficit without sounding like The Washington Post editorial page concerning Social Security, so I wouldn’t say you were a chump.
Marcus
@Rachel: Yes he did, but I’m waiting for an ‘R’ to state it.
@Martin Buddy: I’ve yet to see an ‘R’ give any constructive ideas to this whole thing – they know it’s bad for them, and just seem to want to make it go away. I’d love to see an amendment pass stating Congress gets the same coverage as the rest of us – with being a politician is a ‘pre-existing’ condition….
mai naem
The Repubs only have three ideas to offer for healthcare. One is the health savings plan which is yet another tax shelter for the rich because most people don’t have a $100K sitting around for healthcare costs when they are under 40. Second is the selling of insurance plans across states lines which is another strike at blue states with stronger regulatory structures. Last, is tort reform which is mostly bogus. Go check out the physician regulatory board in your state and look at what these physicians get away with and then tell me that there should be tort reform. You apparently have to kill several people before you lose your license.
CalD
Another post on B-J the other day about the high cost of executing people in states that have the death penalty (generally around $1.5 million vs. $750,000 for life imprisonment the last I knew) got me wondering how much we spent in killing people in Iraq on a per-person basis. Estimates on how many people actually died as a direct or indirect result of our Iraqi adventure vary widely, but if you add up the number of US and Iraqi military and casualties in the invasion, plus civilian contractors, plus civilian casualties from the invasion and occupation, acts of terrorism and factional fighting and privation due to war-related causes, a number somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 war dead seems pretty defensible.
Now, if you add up money cost of the invasion and occupation, bringing home the troops and their equipment, replacing lost equipment and the long term costs of caring for disabled veterans, $1.5 trillion seems pretty conservative. And if you divide $1,500,000,000,000 by 1,000,000 that also works out to about $1.5 million per person. And if you want to argue that the total number of people killed was lower than a million, then cost per person goes up.
Anyway, I take all that to suggest that as a society, we generally seem pretty OK with the idea of spending $1.5 million to kill a person. So where then is the threshold of social acceptability for the per-person cost of keeping people alive and healthy? I don’t know the answer to that question but I’m guessing it’s lower than that.