Ezra Klein has a good post today discussing the problem with the costs of health care reform and how to pay for them. His point is that the structure of the bills being discussed so far lead them to not do enough to control long-term costs, and that efforts to scale them back further either achieve a lower price by delaying implementation--which just allows cost to dramatically diverge from the "pay-fors" outside the budget window--or they simply leave the currently unaffordable system relatively intact. As David Brooks seconds in the New York Times, the effort to make reform politically palatable--in that it didn't try to dramatically change how most Americans get their health care--instead left us with proposals that are not very popular, but also don't provide the change needed to begin to fix our health care cost problems.
In some sense this is because the problems with our health care system are so dramatic, that the broader in scope the reform, the greater the chance that reform has to actually cut costs. But it is also because members of Congress have a hard time doing the right thing from a policy...
