Why Make Health Reform Deficit Neutral?

Why Make Health Reform Deficit Neutral?

When the terrorist attacks of 9 / 11 hit the United States and then suddenly we were plunged into struggle, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, I don’t mind anyone demanding that the wars be “deficit neutral. ” No one talked about whether we could support them. They were things we just had to do.
When George W. Bush proposed giving vast sums to filthy rich people in the conformation of tax cuts, no one argued that it would be “deficit neutral. ” Tolerably, it was argued that cutting taxes wouldn’t bring in less tax revenue at all, it would bring us more tax revenue due to the economy would get bigger so much faster. And besides, it was somehow strikingly urgent, something we just had to do.
When the banks tottered and needed to be shored up with taxpayer money to the tune of partly $1 trillion, there was no way to take up this would be “deficit neutral. ” We might get the money back, we might not. Whether we could give it was not the interrogation, we just had to do it to save the banking system. Similarly, the “Stimulus Bill” was radically urgent, and something we just had to do, whether we could support it or not.
Then we come to health care reform, and suddenly, it seems, this is where we draw the line. The president says that health care reform must be “deficit neutral. ” It can’t actually cost us concern in tax funds. And everyone nods sagely and argues over how to do this.
Why is this the one thing that we can only do if we can indicate ahead of time that it will not actually cost concept? Our current system costs us an estimated 44, 000 lives and impoverishes millions of Americans every year, and causes unnoted suffering. Why is this the one huge national hot water that everyone agrees we can’t care to solve?