EconomistMom.com

Bruce Bartlett ponders the question in his Forbes column today.  His conclusion:

I don’t think any health expert doubts that it is possible for the U.S. to spend far less on health than it does today while improving the general quality of health. Obviously this is the case because other countries do it.

Health care reform would be relatively easy if we were starting from scratch. But we aren’t. We not only have to design a new system if we hope to lower costs without impairing health care quality, but we also have to figure out how to get from here to there given that we have an enormously complicated health system involving massive government programs along with huge health insurance companies, increasing numbers of businesses dropping or reducing their health care benefits to workers, and a large and growing population of people with no health insurance at all.

It’s too soon to say what the outcome will be of the congressional debate on health reform. But one thing is for sure: unless we find a way of at least slowing the rate of growth of health spending it will not have delivered on our biggest health problem–its cost.

…But I like the simpler bottom line he used in his email promoting the column:

I conclude that we are paying far too much for what we get.  Any reform that doesn’t significantly reduce costs is not worth doing.

…which is the idea that Stan Collender labeled the “reverse Nike” the other day.  (Love it.)

Have a Happy 4th… Don’t expect any pithy thoughts from me for a few days–although perhaps you’ll get some silly ones.