The standard Republican response to Kathleen Sebelius’ decision to suspend the CLASS program — the Affordable Care Act’s voluntary long-term care insurance plan — after failing to come up with a sustainable model is truly baffling. One can argue that HHS should have listened to the warnings of actuaries who argued that CLASS would never attract enough young and healthy people to keep the program self-sustaining, but criticizing the administration for making the fiscally responsible decision on the back end and canceling the program before it ever became operational is pure nonsense.

But today’s Wall Street Journal — America’s alleged beacon of fiscal responsibility — does just that and more. The paper portrays Sebelius’ decision to accept the fiscal realities of CLASS as an example of Democrats’ effort “to put government on the hook for middle-class costs like home health services” and suggests that the administration’s conceit provides lawmakers with an opportunity to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) — a body that’s responsible for reducing government health care spending:

The only reason the Health and Human Services Department pre-emptively called off this scheme is that former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg succeeded in inserting a provison that required the Class program’s reality to match Democratic promises as a matter of law. If HHS couldn’t provide “an actuarial analysis of the 75-year costs of the program that ensures solvency throughout such 75-year period,” it couldn’t be legally implemented. [...]

At a minimum the GOP could begin by repealing the Class program altogether, since its legal authority is still intact. “One should never leave a partly loaded gun on the table, even if most of the chambers are empty or just house blanks,” writes the American Enterprise Institute’s Tom Miller. He also suggests attaching a few of the more destructive provisions and forcing Democrats to defend them, such as Mr. Orszag’s Independent Payment Advisory Board of 15 political appointees who have broad unaccountable powers to control health-care markets and health care.

On one hand, it’s great to see the paper admit that Democrats did incorporate Republican amendments into the law — in this case Judd Gregg’s safety clutch. On the other, it only serves as a reminder that it doesn’t matters what Democrats do or what compromises they reach, the conservative narrative of “unrestrained government spending” will remain unchanged to the point where the clearest examples of fiscal restraint will be interpreted as its greatest vindication.

Upon entering the race for the GOP presidential bid, Texas Gov. Rick Perry immediately got walloped for his executive order to have girls vaccinated against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), “the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States” that can lead to cervical cancer. Fending off competitor Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) misguided attacks against the HPV vaccine at a GOP debate last month, Perry defended himself with, “I hate cancer.” “Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. We wanted to bring that to the attention of these ten of thousands of young people in our state,” he said. “At the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives.”

However, Perry’s actions in Texas tell a different story. This summer, he signed a budget into law that eviscerates state support for cervical cancer screenings by gutting family planning funding by nearly 66 percent. The move, he brags, nearly defunds Planned Parenthood — a women’s health organization that “provides four times more cervical cancer screenings every year in Texas than abortions”:

[H]e gets some of his biggest applause in early primary states when he brags of signing a state budget that largely defunds Planned Parenthood — which provides four times more cervical cancer screenings every year in Texas than abortions.

Perry and lawmakers curtailed funding for Planned Parenthood earlier this year by cutting the state’s family planning budget by nearly 66 percent, from $111.5 million last biennium to $37.9 million in the next two years. In Texas, these state-funded family planning services have included birth control, STD testing, breast cancer exams, and pap smears that screen for HPV, the virus that can lead to cervical cancer — but not abortions.

Instead, Perry diverts funding to crisis pregnancy centers, fake abortion clinics “whose predominant function is to counsel women against abortions.” The vast majority of CPCs are not licensed medical clinics and do not provide the same prevention services as Planned Parenthood, including preventative services like pap smears and breast cancer screenings. Even though nearly 180,000 Texas women will likely lose access to services due to family planning cuts, Texas lawmakers upped the funding for these CPCs to $8.3 million instead.

The majority of Planned Parenthood’s services involve contraception, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screening and prevention. Only 3 percent of their services involve abortion procedures, and Planned Parenthood “has legally separated its nonabortion health clinics so it can receive state aid.” That 3 percent of non-taxpayer funded service is enough for Perry to rebuke the whole organization — and jeopardize the health of thousands of Texas women at the same time.

The Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee released their recommendations to the super committee on Friday, calling for a likely increase in the Medicare eligibility age, block granting the Medicaid program and repealing the Affordable Care Act. Those are the parts of the plan that Democrats won’t agree to, but the rest of the effort does bear some hope for bipartisan compromise and has been included in President Obama’s deficit plan and the bipartisan fiscal commission report :

- Evaluating the impact of supplemental coverage -> Obama’s deficit plan proposes a Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries that purchase near first-dollar Medigap coverage.

- Establishing a uniform deductible covering Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B services -> Fiscal commission recommended establishing a single combined annual deductible of $550 for Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (medical care)

- The Senators recommend the evaluation of the Medicare Part B costsharing threshold -> Obama’s deficit plan proposes increasing income-related premiums under Medicare Parts B and D

- Partner with the federal government in providing more coordinated care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid -> Fiscal Commission recommended placing dual eligibles in Medicaid managed care

- Realigning provider payments and evaluating existing cost-sharing structures for post-acute services -> Obama’s deficit plan includes provisions to encourage efficient post-acute care and realigns provider payments to help rural providers

The devil, as always, is in the details (and the CBO score), but the policy in the bullet points above can provide at least a starting point for reaching some sensible health care savings in next month’s deficit reduction package.