Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHY WE NEED HEALTH REFORM.
In the Politico today, Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen offer something of a reality check on the next president's spending priorities. In particular, they say, "How can you expand health care coverage when the country is broke? The federal debt is now expected to top $11 trillion by 2010."
If you're worried about the federal debt -- particularly the long-term federal debt -- there is literally no way you can afford not to reform health care. The following graph charts the drivers of federal spending over the next couple of decades. Look what leads the way:
Yep. Medicare and Medicaid. Now, because the government releases a lot of graphs like this one, a lot of folks end up believing that the problem is Medicare and Medicaid. But it's not. It's generalized health care spending, and it's as much a burden on the private sector as the public treasury. The next graph tracks the next few decades in GDP per capita, then in GDP per capita after taxes (which is to say, including cost increases in Medicare and Medicaid), then, on the yellow line, GDP per capita after taxes and after private health care spending. And what you see is, to a wonk's mind, quite scary: Real income actually goes down. The country becomes, effectively, poorer.
If what you're worried about is the future fiscal condition of the country, the bailout hardly even registers. Indeed, in comparison to health care, most everything else is secondary. And the longer we wait to fix health care and bring our finances into equilibrium, the more drastic the reform will have to be, and the more painful it will likely prove. The worsening fiscal condition of the country makes health reform more, not less, important.
COMMENTS (6)
Fuck Americans -- we only have hundreds of billions for the poor millionaires on Wall Street who might lose their private jets!
Posted by: John McCain: Worse than Bush | September 29, 2008 12:56 PM
The top chart can't be correct. Military spending is currently 54% of the discretionary budget (that would be the red stripe). The rest of discretionary budget is, presumably, the yellow stripe.
One of the tricks the gov't does is to hide military spending in other departments, like Energy and HHS.
A more meaningful graph can be found here:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
In addition considering SS and Medicare/caid as part of the federal "budget" is also a gimmick. Before LBJ decided to hide the cost of the Vietnam war they were considered independent items with their own dedicated revenue streams and disbursements.
You cut back on the $800 billion in militarism and I guarantee we'll have enough money to pay for health care.
Posted by: robertdfeinman | September 29, 2008 1:01 PM
Good political approach: Rapidly rising healthcare costs are the worst. Reforming the healthcare system is part of the solution, not a problem. Not only will making sure everyone is insured help bring massive administrative costs under control, but it's necessary for the national confidence needed to grow the economy, create jobs and bring in more tax revenue.
Posted by: urban legend | September 29, 2008 1:10 PM
It is incorrect to say "then in GDP per capita after taxes (which is to say, including cost increases in Medicare and Medicaid)"
The pink line in that chart does not represent the cost increases in Medicare/caid because the tax revenues are no longer high enough to pay for them (which is pretty clear from the first chart).
Posted by: AB | September 29, 2008 1:16 PM
40+ years of government "reform" has got us to this point, that's why smarter minds then yours know more "reform" isn't the solution.
Posted by: Nate | September 29, 2008 3:42 PM
The worsening fiscal condition of the country makes health reform more, not less, important.
Yes-- but not reform based on any of the proposals that have been discussed. Cost control is what's needed first, and its time that Democrats stop the pretend argument of "we need universality before cost control" and start getting serious about health reform that matters to the 93% of the voting electorate that has insurance already but is worried about the economy.
Ezra, you know this already, so this seems like a pretty disingenious post to me...
PS I did like yesterday's post, but this one pretty much cancelled that one out.
Posted by: wisewon | September 29, 2008 3:59 PM