Rand Paul doesn't care about his constituents (or the deficit)

I mean, you knew that already, but this pretty much proves it.

"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said in the hearing, later adding that the regulations so far have done a “pretty good job” of reducing black lung. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome enough that our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the costs of regulation and whether they save lives."

Except in this case, they do save lives. Provably, empirically, they save lives. Rand Paul's constituents lives, since Eastern Kentucky is coal country and his constituents are still dying.

But Rand Paul clearly values campaign contributions over constituents lives.

Candidate	Office	Amount
Manchin, Joe (D-WV)	Senate	$178,848
Blunt, Roy (R-MO)	House	$145,253
Portman, Rob (R-OH)		$128,025
Maynard, Elliott (R-WV)		$112,300
Paul, Rand (R-KY)		$99,627

What does this have to do with the deficit? According to The Hastings Center:

The mortality of chronic lung disease is predicted to decrease at a rate of 1.5% a year until 2030, and yet the cost of treating it is predicted to more than double from $176.8 billion in 2006 to $389.2 billion in 2011 and to reach $832.9 billion in 2021. The reason for this skyrocketing increase is a 31.1% increase in the number of diagnoses predicted by the Milken Institute.
Medicare spent over $8 billion on respiratory disease, excluding pneumonia, in 2006, a figure that is bound to increase tremendously in the next decade.

 Wouldn't someone trying to cut the deficit want to prevent expensive, chronic disease?