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.

Obama's plans will increase health-care spending

You've got to love a president who thinks he can reduce the deficit by expanding health-care spending to cover virtually every American. But Obama and his supporters have been claiming that they can achieve this magic trick through some reforms that will increase efficiencies and thus reduce spending. The proposals mentioned most often are more preventive care, more use of IT by doctors, better management of chronic diseases, paying for outcomes rather than procedures, and effectiveness ratings that could guide health-care decisions.

As this Register editorial explains, however, while all of these proposals have some merit, none would offer substantial savings or in some cases even any savings at all. The Congressional Budget Office, controlled by Democrats since 2006, has done projections of all, and none promises savings worth noticing. Too bad. We're working on some free-market proposals that might actually lead to better care for more people for less money, using competition rather than top-down regulation and mandates. Stay tuned.