Health Care: It's Not About The Money - It's about POWER

Just a few years ago, Republicans were in control of everything in Washington, having augmented their power by amoral deceit if not criminal conduct. As a result they lost everything. Their well-earned but involuntary demise must be devastating to them.

Recoiling, they have desperately been trying to regain power by rousing and manipulating their coalition of the ignorant, bigoted, and crazy.

For example, Republicans like to scream about health care and other Obama initiatives are bankrupting the nation. They belly-ache about the burden they claim we're putting on our grandchildren.

Well, I've done some serious research, and I say: bullcookies!

As a percentage of the national economy, all the borrowing we're doing now - even including potential costs of health care reform - is not in the same league, proportionately, with the debt we carried during WWII.

I've located the complete tables of total federal expenses and total national debt as a percentage of the national economy (Gross Domestic Product) from 1932 to the present. The data are taken from the annual Economic Report of the President. The source of the data is nonpartisan - it is drawn the reports of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWBush, and GWBush as well as those of Democratic presidents.

Here are the undisputed facts:

• The peak national debt as a percentage of GDP occurred in FY 1946, 121.7%. We seem to have recovered just fine. I/my generation paid the taxes to reduce that debt, and I never suffered poverty or inability to buy a house or a car or put my kids through college.

• The low national debt as a percentage of GDP was in FY 1981, the last FY of the Carter Administration, 32.6%

• During Reagan and GHW Bush, (FY 1982-1993) the national debt as a percentage of GDP doubled, rising to 66.2%

• The national debt as a percentage of GDP dropped to 57.4% during the Clinton years (FY 1994-2001)

• The national debt as a percentage of GDP rose to 70.4% during the GWBush years (FY 2002-2009). The FY 2009 data includes last year's stimulus and bail-out spending.

The current GDP is approximately $15 trillion (final data for Q2 of last year was $14.4 trillion). Even if there were no economic growth for the next 10 years, and $4.5 trillion in added debt, the national debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from the FY 2009 level of 70.4% to almost exactly 100%, still far below WWII levels. Such an increase would be approximately 10 times the added debt forecast for even the most pessimistic forecast of health care reform costs.

If you wish to view the actual debt vs. GDP tables, go to GPO.gov - Economic Reports of the President and click on 2009 to see the complete list of tables for that (most recent) year. Then download Table B-79, and other tables of your interest from that year or any other year.

The Republican strategy is not about health care or pulling the plug on grandma. It is not about spending or taxes. This is about power, and they are using lies to gain power, not to win any aspect of rational debate.

Comments

[jericho4119]

This is absolutely a spot on analysis of current national debt picture. It also leads to the question of why our paid journalists cannot do this type of work. Instead, they revel in playing that stupid game of: "So and so said X, but such and such responded Y. Let's go to our senior political analyst and ask him what this all means."

Please, please deliver me from the hell that is one more Sunday full of such inanities.

[Mark Dorlester - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you Jericho4119.

I totally agree - what passes these days for "journalism" is pure garbage based on reflexive opinion, devoid of research/facts. The profit-only motive of reporters and their corporate masters threatens our democracy.

Perhaps it's time to stop watching, and to encourage others to do the same. Perhaps it's time to let Fox or ABC/Disney just go out of business.

[Rickmud]

It's just that reflexively vindictive nature of government, when paired with the government's obvious need to control costs, that will inflict ever-greater pressure on patients who cost the government more money. A national healthcare system will inevitably include greater incentives for diminished end-of-life care, as well as punishments for politically incorrect “risky” or “costly” lifestyle choices. Smokers, the overweight, and other more costly lifestyle choices will first face the voluntary “preventative” care that Obama is talking. But if the government's “customers” fail to heed the carrot, eventually the government will need to create a stick, either to control costs or — as was the case with the British NHS — to avoid political embarrassment.

These government policies would be fostered not only by bean-counting government bureaucrats, but also by the greed and envy of citizens turning on their neighbors asking: why should so-and-so's lifestyle choices be paid for by the rest of us, who are able to keep our weight under control/don't smoke?

British MEP Daniel Hanaan summed up this scenario succinctly:

The idea that this, of all countries, could put into the power of a state bureaucracy decisions over what kind of medical treatment you can get, literally whether you can live or die, is deeply un-American.
Even foreigners can see that self-evident truth. And from the uproar at congressional town meetings, a substantial proportion of Americans see this truth as well.

[jericho4119]

The core of the proposals to reform our healthcare system have nothing - nothing - to do with Medicare recipients, those end-of-life patients, for whom you feign care. The core of these proposals to reform healthcare insurance, is to end the private industry practice of denying care to sick people and foistering the responsibility for their care onto the shoulders of taxpayers, as we - the taxpayers - are the ones who fund the operations of our overly burdened public hospital systems.
 

Since your friends at the insurance companies have decided this is all the responsibility of the taxpayer, all the proposals now are responding with: "You know, you are right.  This is our responsibility.  Here is how we will deal with it."

First: cover everyone. Anyone who knows how insurance works knows that rates are lower for larger pools of coverage. 

Second: end the concept of "pre-existing" conditions. Life is a pre-existing condition and a healthy life requires care.

Third: since we the taxpayers are bearing the burden, we the taxpayers are going to provide a public insurance option for us to choose from as we want. Some people send their kids to public schools, some send them to private schools, but everybody pays for the public schools. And we should: it is in our interest to educate new members of our society, so they don't grow up to hit us over the head and take our wallets, thereby sending us to the hospital. 

[twomeyw23334]

1)The idea that insuring everyone will reduce costs is false. It will guarantee a larger pool of people for a given set of services. Supply and demand, one of the fundamental laws of economics, dictates that increase in demand to an unchanged supply will increase costs. The state of MA has demonstrated this effect nicely, where per-capita health care costs have increased 23% since they're insurance mandate. Mandated insurance will increase costs, as demonstrated both logically and by example (the only two ways to demonstrate something). If you disagree, provide an actual logic based rebuttal instead of "everyone knows" type nonsense.

2) A healthy life requires food, should the government provide food for everybody? Is it not disgusting that the people make profits off of what others need to survive? Also, states like NJ and MA have demonstrated (as logic would assume) ending the concept both increases costs and reduces average quality of care to the lowest common denominator. People leap frog plans (healthy? go on a more affordable plan, sick / need an major operation / etc.? join one of the expensive plans, only to switch back afterward. This kills the insurance companies offering better plans and forces them to reduce quality of care over the long term. When you remove incentive to act responsibly people don't act responsible. Greed always trumps logic or compassion.

[twomeyw23334]

3) We the taxpayers pay an arm an leg for health insurance because of you the leftists and fellow government types. The last 3 decades in particular have seen an onslaught of government regulations, mandates and intervention which have led to massive increases in costs. The idea that more of the problem is the solution is the logical equivalent to suggesting we throw oil on a raging fire after witnessing the fact that oil makes the fire bigger. The "current system" isn't a free market system in need of government intervention. It's the most regulated industry in the country. Our government subsidizes health care more than many of the so called "socialist" countries, and yet purely emotional and illogical leftists continue to attempt to paint it as a "free market."

Free markets provide lower costs, better service, and greater innovation every time. Why wouldn't you want any of these things?

[Cindy Jaffe]

Well researched. I am not hearing that the current deficit is not a concern, only that we have been here before. Where were the Republicans when the last administration was running up record deficits after being handed a surplus? They weren't too concerned about "mortgaging their children's futures" then. I would be interested in what the real numbers are for GW Bush since the cost of war was never included in the budget.
I agree, this is all about regaining power. That is the central issue. The voice of the majority means nothing. The needs of the people are secondary.

[Rickmud]

"Recoiling, they have desperately been trying to regain power by rousing and manipulating their coalition of the ignorant, bigoted, and crazy."

This kind of rhetoric against the american people coupled with their out of control spending is what is wrong with the current power alignment. It will be as devastating to the Democrats as the out of control spending was devastating to Republicans.

[Mark Dorlester - Huffpost Blogger]

If you wish to have a reasonably rational debate about spending and the national debt, fine. The recent Republican talking points about health care reform have been primarily lies and scare tactics. As to the long-term implications of current debt, as opposed to the short term nature of the WWII debt, I don't think so. Take the time, as I did, to look at the actual data. It took nearly 40 years to get the national debt after WWII back down to pre-war levels, in terms of percentage of GDP.

Those who think this post is strictly partisan should ask Sen. Grassley (R-IA) why he lied repeatedly throughout August, inflaming crowds of voters that the House bill included "death panels" and how terrified they should be.

[twomeyw23334]

The deficit during WWII was nearly 90% defense related. Government spending decreased 80% within 3 years after the war ended.

The current deficit, on the contrary, is largely due to entitlement programs, which are scheduled to explode in costs in the next few decades, not suddenly end.

I know it's fun to make believe anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, but you have to be lying to yourself if you don't believe the current deficit is a serious concern.

Source:
http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/willful-omissions-from-paul-krugman/

[jericho4119]

Because of the coming explosion of debts from these entitlement programs, we need to adopt the health care reform put forward by Obama.

It was Democrats who closed out the last century by attempting to take the Medicare surplus and pulling it out of the yearly pie - remember the famous "lockbox" debate? GWB tossed aside that concern, passed massive tax cuts and spent the Medicare surplus on his revenge fantasy of a war against Saddam.

Remember the "we know he's a bad guy, he tried to kill my daddy" speech?

Baby Boomers are about retire in earnest in just a few short years, we have no Medicare surplus to cover their costs and we know that Medicare reimbursement rates are still set at the political whims of doctors and hospitals bribing Congressional Representatives to up rates on the "fee for service" model we have today.

This leads to wasteful procedures. If you tell a man he will get paid piecemeal, guess how many pieces he will make?

Obama wants to change our payment model to "pay for outcome", which means you will only get paid for five MRI exams, if you can prove that this was the best way to diagnose the problem you were trying to resolve.

That is what "bending the cost curve" means and it is an indisputable fact that Republicans have been fiddling while our debt fire burned - because they want to gut entitlement programs, not reform them.

[Insearchoftruth]

The Republican strategy has always been to exhaust federal financial capacity such that democrats could not pursue social reform or build the safety net. It was an emplicit part of Reagans spending agenda and is part of the conservative ideology today. The only thing they want the federal government to do is provide for the national defense. From their point of view anything else is unnecessary. That is why they say now and will continue to say we can't afford to invest in the general welfare of the American people. They disregard that part of the constitution.

Let's take one more step. Extracting and concentrating the nations wealth is a critical part of the Republican identity. The contrasting view that the nations wealth is a public good and should be used to promote the general welfare is unacceptable. They embrace the ideal that only the strong deserve to surviive. So yes you are right. It is about power. The power to control and direct the nations wealth.

[cyndeewi]

Awesome post! Very informative!

[Javaline]

Power. Such a stupid thing to lust after. Craving power just means you have serious self-esteem problems, and the idea that wielding "power" somehow magically transforms you into a superior human is the stuff of lunacy. No matter how much power you accumulate, you still die like everybody else.

[Rickmud]

"The Republican strategy is not about health care or pulling the plug on grandma. It is not about spending or taxes. This is about power, and they are using lies to gain power, not to win any aspect of rational debate.

Taxes
Health Care"


"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States."
Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

It was never about hope and change for this administration its about Power.

Rick Mead