The Great Depression Historiography and The Opening Chapter of The Body Economic

The Body Economic opens the chapter with the dramatic statement that "health had nothing to do with economic cycles, but depended on how politicians chose to respond to the crisis" (Stuckler & Basu, 2013). Both Stuckler and Basu are essentially saying that health declines during economic downturns are preventable with government social programs, which is why austerity measures to decrease government spending "kills" people.

It is quite clear from these opening remarks that the authors are supporters of a more Keynesian belief in economics, one that proposes that government demand is central to a strong economy. In other words, government spending on public works, social programs, and other services will help provide for a robust recovery. All the more fitting then for the authors to support FDR's New Deal Program, which they bathe with positive health statistics.

However, recent history discussions are now debating whether the New Deal was actually effective in helping the US recover from the Great Depression. In fact, a recent push by conservatives and libertarians say that FDR prolonged the Great Depression through his expansionary fiscal policies of increasing government spending. Their line of reasoning is more akin the Adams Smith's invisible hand, let the markets correct themselves. By messing with the prices, wages, and employment you stop the market from its corrective actions leading to all kinds of problems. In essence, the conservatives and libertarians want the government stop exerting power over the business models so that the natural law of money will work things out.

However, the conservative support for a more hands off government runs counter to the left's push for more government programs. Who would be right in this case?
The left has stated that government spending would definitely improve the healthcare of the population, while the right argues that government spending would actual prolong the population's misery by not allowing the businesses to run effectively. Would the health benefits of the government spending be greater than the negative effects caused by a prolonged economic decline? Or would the benefits of economic recovery be greater than that of health benefits?

Would either policy actually play out as proposed by the left or the right? There are numerous factors and previous historical examples of how both can be completely wrong about their predictions and policies. What would be interesting for our current case of studying government austerity would be compare and contrast between the Keynesian policies under Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and the economics of Reaganomics under Ronald Reagan.