Quantcast Unmasking A Classic Krugman Canard
Search by tag or site Login to my blog ? Start my own blog














TheMoneyBlogs
Home
About
Create your own blog
Contact us
Vote for this blog!

Poor and Stupid

How big government, big business, big media and big academia block your road to financial freedom- and tell you it's for your own good.

Unmasking A Classic Krugman Canard

Posted on 01/18/2007 08:25 AM | Link | Post Comment
Nice Krugman slashing by David Hogberg at the American Spectator:
...Krugman's attempt to paint our health care system as inferior,
The only reason universal coverage seems hard to achieve here is the spectacular inefficiency of the U.S. health care system. Americans spend more on health care per person than anyone else -- almost twice as much as the French, whose medical care is among the best in the world. Yet we have the highest infant mortality and close to the lowest life expectancy of any wealthy nation.
I'm not going to get into the defects of using life expectancy and infant mortality as measurements of a health care system (go here for that). The question here is whether Krugman knows that these are poor measures. Since 2002 he has written a least 8 columns in the New York Times plus an article in both the New York Times Magazine and the New York Review of Books using these measures to bash our health care system. It is difficult to believe that, in all that time, he has never received an email telling him that such measures tell us little about a health care system. Indeed, going back to one of his columns from 2005, it's pretty clear that he has received such an email:
Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
Krugman is clearly weasel-wording his way to an admission that life expectancy and infant mortality are poor measures of a health care system. So, Krugman knows that these measures are lousy, but he continues to use them. I can't imagine why.
By the way, does anyone know why the Spectator continues to give a platform to Ben Stein (this Hogberg article's web page features a prominent link to Stein's contributions)? Isn't the New York Times enough of an outlet for Stein's elitist tax-hiking agenda? Does a small conservative journal need to participate, too?

Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link.

Stock Quote or
Examples
ATM Wallstreet - Mon Oct 06, 2008 03:39PM
Made several great trades today. Traded the QID, QQ [read more]
ATM Wallstreet - Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:07PM
Today we have the Fed speaking and release of Fed mi [read more]
Morpheus Trading - Tue Oct 07, 2008 08:33AM
NOTE: Please click on the charts below to enlarge them [read more]

PREMIER SPONSORED LINKS

Most Visited Blogs | Most Popular Blogs | Most Recent Blogs | Contact Us | Terms and conditions | Privacy Policy

The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on TheMoneyBlogs.com are provided for personal finance, education and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of TheMoneyBlogs.com and there is no implied endorsement by TheMoneyBlogs.com of any advice or trading strategy. The analysts and employees or affiliates of TheMoneyBlogs.com may hold positions in the stocks or industries discussed here. Your use of this and all information contained on TheMoneyBlogs.com is governed by the Terms and Conditions of Use. Please click the link to view those terms. Follow this link to read our Editorial Policy.

Copyright © 2008 The Connors Group, Inc.