Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CUTTING THE STIMULUS ON THE BACKS OF THE ILL.
Speaking of health care policy -- and hey, on this blog, we're always speaking of health care policy -- some fairly important public health measures were eliminated from the stimulus when Susan Collins and Ben Nelson worked their centrist magic. The cuts came in comparative medical research, smoking cessation, HIV prevention and testing, diabetes screening and detection, pandemic flu preparedness, health information technology, and much else. So yes, in case you're wondering, the centrist compromises not only cut jobs and increased the long-term cost of health care, but also ensured the preventable deaths of thousands of people. Nebraskans, presumably, think we're saving enough lives already. And the people in Maine, I hear, think we're saving way too many lives.
In response to these cuts, Harold Pollack and more than 600 other health care practitioners, scholars, and analysts have signed a letter opposing the cuts. It's the sort of document that the conference committee should take seriously. The sums being discussed are fairly small in terms of the stimulus, but would do quite a lot to harm the affected communities at a time when the social supports they rely on will be falling out from beneath them. And fundamentally, it's simply the moral thing to do. A decent society doesn't spent $70 billion on an upper-class tax cut and then cut costs around around the edges by eliminating public health programs that save the lives of the working poor and ease the lives of the chronically ill.
COMMENTS (11)
What don't progressives get about stimulus? I mean it is not like there isn't a lot to be angry about but preventative care . Preventative care in a stimulus bill? Really?
I guess your just angry that spending a trillion dollars on mostly nonpartisan economic stimulus makes a New Deal II less likely.
Posted by: gordon gekko | February 10, 2009 6:26 PM
If these program are so critical and nesseccary, why can't the Democrats pass them in a separate bill?
BTW as for smoking cessation programs, I quit smoking without the Governments help.
Unless you count them raising the price of cigarettes with sin taxes
Posted by: Paul L. | February 10, 2009 7:10 PM
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later
Can you say RATION?
Posted by: El Viajero | February 10, 2009 7:19 PM
Thank you for this post, Ezra. There's really nothing else to add, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: signsanssignified | February 10, 2009 7:55 PM
USA already spends more money on healthcare than any other nation on earth, BY FAR, and you idiots want to spend even MORE money? Nice plan genius.
From now on and do us a favor when you are suggesting bold new spending for healthcare. Two words for you to learn:
BUDGET NEUTRAL!
Posted by: joeblow@aol.com | February 10, 2009 9:59 PM
Hear hear! Just one minor addition: as I've suggested here, the Senate has raised the health IT line from the House's reasonable startup $2bn to a wasteful $5bn. Shift the difference to public health and everybody wins.
Posted by: James Wimberley | February 11, 2009 4:09 AM
PS: My "hear hear!2 was of course for Ezra's post not the troglodyte comments.
Listen, fellers:
1. The US and world economy is going down the tube and the only hope of avoiding another depression is massive government spending, on anything, NOW.
2. Might as well spend the money on useful things like education, public transport and health than on wars and bridges to nowhere. But better holes in the ground than nothing.
Posted by: James Wimberley | February 11, 2009 4:18 AM
But better holes in the ground than nothing.
This is the false choice that is offered to the people. Take this wasteful bill or face economic death.
What a load of Succotash!
Government spending simply does not have the same effect as actions that encourage private investment and private capital pooling.
Save business and save the economy.
And that's the problem the left faces. They have demonized business for so long they can't seem to bring themselves to admit that the private sector is where all the permanent jobs come from.
Posted by: El Viajero | February 11, 2009 9:43 AM
They have demonized business for so long they can't seem to bring themselves to admit that the private sector is where all the permanent jobs come from.
Really? I'm so confused, Fred, don't you right-wing nutjobs usually say that government is inefficient partly because it's hard to fire lazy, incompetent people? So apparently government jobs have too much job security, but they aren't permanent? I must be missing something.
Posted by: Cyrus | February 11, 2009 12:42 PM
New jobs come from small private businesses.
Say it ain't so.
Posted by: El Viajero | February 11, 2009 4:57 PM
"Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later"
Daschle also says people demand too much of healthcare and the new Health Czar of Information in the new intrusive database is going to tell your doctor to stop treating you if they think it's too expensive (even if it's your money) - the effort is designed to CURB treatment efforts, especially those that "merely" prolong life.
Looks like Daschle and the Porkulus bill think we're saving WAY too many lives too!
Posted by: Anniee | February 12, 2009 4:39 AM