Tuesday, June 16, 2009

More care for more people for less money? Sure!

It seems as if even many in the "mainstream" media (you know, the ones that are losing customers and bleeding money but still employing the likes of me) are writing stories pointing out that Obama's projections on semi-universal health care just don't pencil out. The CBO has released studies showing that while using more IT in medicine might be a good idea (though not all doctors even agree on that) it wouldn't save money, and neither would a federal board to assess treatment efficacy or cost-effectiveness -- though it might lead to rationing. And he's going to cut Medicare by $300billion-plus while increasing doctor fees, with AARP and the unions standing athwart the proposal.

Here's the Register's response to Obama's speech to the AMA on Monday. It points out that the rising cost of health care in the U.S. has proceeded in lockstep with increasing government involvement, beginning with Medicare in the 1960s (when health care accounted for 5% of GDP, not 16-18%).

Politically I don't think it's exactly a slam-dunk for Obama either.

No comments: