Clive Thompson of the New York Times shines a well deserved spotlight on the research of Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, who study the spread of health conditions through a population through social networks.  Here is a teaser from the article:

At this point there's little doubt  that CBO is coming under attack from health care reform proponents for its analysis.

For example, take a look at this column by Bruce Vladek in yesterday's Roll Call.  Although there are many, here's what I consider to be the money quote:

...CBO’s track record in predicting the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures.

This is actually a debate that's been raging for weeks in a variety of ways within the budgeting community.  I received a lengthy e-mail several days ago from a friend and budget scholar (whose name and material I don't have permission to use) that went into great detail about this.  That's typical.  After all, a discussion on estimating techniques is the stuff that dreams are made of for many budget wonks.

My "Fiscal Fitness" column from today's Roll Call.

Reconciliation for Health Care Should Not Be an Issue

April 21, 2009
By Stan Collender
Roll Call Contributing Writer   

How is it possible that the part of the Congressional budget process designed to bring people together and create closure is creating so much angst and leaving so much up in the air this year?

Your Sunday required reading today comes from The Valley News, my local paper, which profiles Dr. Elliott Fisher, one of the driving forces behind The Dartmouth Institute.  The early part of the article will give you some sense of how TDI grew up around the Dartmouth Atlas Project.  The best quote comes from Fisher about the waste in the health care industry:

I was not alone yesterday in thinking that Obama should push for some progress on health care reform immediately, but the sentiment wasn't universal.  Here (via Mark Thoma) is what some of his advisers are saying:

"It would be very difficult to come in and say, 'That agenda I've been pursuing for a year and a half? Never mind it,' " Jared Bernstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute said during an interview with The Times last week.

But Bernstein, a key Obama economic advisor, acknowledged that some economic issues may have to be addressed with greater urgency to provide a foundation for others.

"We can't tackle healthcare until we get the economy working," he said. "If the economy is weak, how can you make good on the promises you made?"

I read with some interest this piece by Jeff Sachs in Slate, "What Obama Needs To Do."  I think there will be a lot of columns like this, so let me add to their number.  The thrust of Sachs' advice is this:

In sum, the recipes since 1981 of small government and small-bore solutions are passé and dangerous for our very survival in the United States and on this planet. While Reagan was crudely ideological, Clinton mildly reformist, and Bush simply crude in the application of these small-government doctrines, none of the recent approaches will do. It's time to stop talking about who can give away more to the public in rebates and start talking about investing in our future in a way that can save the poor, sustain the rest, and build a decent world for our children. Those are the real family values.

This morning, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke spoke on health care at the Senate Finance Committee Health Reform Summit.  His prepared remarks cited the extraordinary growth of health care spending as unsustainable, but he cautioned against harming innovation amidst the efforts to curtail health care costs.