Sausage Recipes from the Near Past
Kevin Drum reminds us of the right’s approach to financing health care legislation:
When Republicans passed the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003, they didn’t really need to worry much about how to finance it. Their plan was straightforward: first, have the administration lie repeatedly about the cost of the bill and make sure Congress never knew about it. Second, don’t worry about financing it anyway. Just blow another hole in the deficit and move on.
That helps put things in perspective. But it is worth saying that in addition to “Republicans,” one Max Baucus (D-MT) also supported the bill, which is worth keeping in mind when you hear about how he’s insisting that health reform’s cost be limited to an arbitrary $1 trillion over ten years limit.
That said, even though it would be totally hypocritical for Republicans to complain about an un-paid-for health care bill, it’s genuinely important that the final bill be paid for so it’s a good thing that Democratic leaders are insisting on it.
6 Responses to “Sausage Recipes from the Near Past”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Well, see, their point is that now that they have trashed the economy, we can no longer afford to be as fiscally irresponsible as they were.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It’s worth noting that the 2008-2018 cost of the Medicare drug benefit is…$1 Trillion dollars (actually $999 billion).
So, $1 trillion is the right amount to spend to get a drug benefit for seniors, but it’s out of the question to fix the entire healthcare system so everyone can afford coverage?
I can only imagine if the Republican majority ran a grocery store. They’d be willing to charge bananas at $10 apiece, but they’d turn down oranges at $10 per hundred. Because, you know, it would be reckless to spend $10 on fruit!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Total debt obligations of the United States are more than $65 trillion. In comparison, what is a $1 trillion investment over ten years for a 21st century health care system that will save us loads of money in the long run?
Chump change.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Or, how about this, we spend $2 trillion per year – per year – on healthcare, and it’s rising by 8% a year.
So wouldn’t $1 trillion over 10 years only make that 2.1 trillion per year??? And wouldn’t be a good thing when the effects start kicking in, and we bend the curve downwards?
Oh and Obama has laid out $950 billion in savings over 10 years just to fund this – so it’s all free, except for the 300 billion in tax deduction changes for the super rich.
So all this quibbling is nonsense, and pure politics.
(P.S. I’d like to see a nice graph on all of this – wonder who has it.)
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Since Democrats were insisting on an unpaid-for Medicare drug bill costing much, much more, it would be even more hypocritical for left-wingers like Matthew to complain about Republican hypocrisy.
(Not to mention that the drug bill actually turned out to cost much less than the estimates.)
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Since Democrats were insisting on an unpaid-for Medicare drug bill costing much, much more, it would be even more hypocritical for left-wingers like Matthew to complain about Republican hypocrisy.
Wow, that is dumb even for Al. Of course Democrats (or anyone else) who supported expanding public health care both times can point out the hypocrisy of the people who supported the Medicare drug bill but now are whining about a similar cost for a much broader expansion of coverage. That is because those Democrats (or other people) are being broadly consistent, as opposed to the people whose fiscal policies entirely depend on which party controls the White House.