New York Times Examines How Iraq War Funds Could Finance Health Care, Other Domestic Proposals of Presidential Candidates

The New York Times on Monday examined how Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) during their campaigns have said that funds spent on the war in Iraq are "crowding out urgent national needs," such as an expansion of health insurance to more U.S. residents.

At "the low end of estimates of the cost of the war -- $120 billion a year -- the money would cover the projected cost" of either the Clinton or Obama health care proposal or the "unpaid part of the Medicare drug benefit," the Times reports.

According to a Clinton economic adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, she has proposed to cover the cost of her health care and other domestic proposals without the use of funds that the Department of Defense would need to redeploy troops in Iraq and pay for their health care costs. "Everything is paid for," the adviser said. Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor and an Obama economic adviser, said that savings from a winding down of the war would materialize slowly. Goolsbee said sources such as elimination of Bush tax cuts and federal spending reductions "will more than pay for everything Senator Obama has proposed."

James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said, "Before the war started and without any of the new ideas of the candidates, we're in a situation where we have to reduce spending and reduce the rate of growth of Medicare and Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. So the costs of the war have to be seen in that context." Horney added, "Even if you assume the war costs will phase down ... we are still on an unsustainable track under current budget policy" (Broder, New York Times, 4/14).

Clinton, Obama Have Similar Policy Positions
The AP/Boston Globe on Friday examined how Clinton and Obama are "closely aligned" in policy positions on health care and other issues. At a debate earlier this year, Obama said, "95% of our health care plan is similar." Clinton said, "The differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the differences that we have with Republicans."

Both the Clinton and Obama health care proposals would seek to expand health insurance to more U.S. residents and make coverage more affordable. The most significant difference in the proposals involves the question of whether to mandate that all residents obtain health insurance. The Clinton proposal includes such a mandate, while the Obama plan would require coverage only for children (Pickler, AP/Boston Globe, 4/11).

Steve Forbes Discusses Health Care Issues
Former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes on Wednesday at the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs said that expanded use of health savings accounts would help limit health care costs, the Newark Star-Ledger reports. Forbes said, "The problem is the crazy way we finance health care -- it's all through third parties," adding, "There's a disconnect between the provider and you, the consumer, the patient."

In addition, Forbes said that the cost of elective medical procedures, such as vision correction and cosmetic surgeries, has decreased by half over the past 10 years because of market forces. Forbes added, "Rarely have we had an election where there are such stark differences between the two parties regarding issues like national security, taxes, Social Security, health care, energy, you name it." Forbes has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) (Abamowitz, Newark Star-Ledger, 4/13).