skipping over the fact that krugman invokes "[w]ell-informed business executives" now that it suits him, krugman (correctly) points to medical innovation and/or improvements as a primary driver of medical cost increases. (surprisingly) krugman continues with good points about insurance coverage and actually paying for some of this stuff.
unfortunately, the princeton professor trips up with regard to attempting to demonstrate ineffeciency of US health care. specifically, the statistics he cites to prove it:
Finally, the U.S. health care system is wildly inefficient....We spend far more per person on health care than any other country - 75 percent more than Canada or France - yet rank near the bottom among industrial countries in indicators from life expectancy to infant mortality.[btw, i'm waiting for the krugman article suggesting education reform....substitute 'education' for 'health care' and krugman would could come to a similar conclusion regarding education]
the bogus-sounding nature of this stat prompted simple research (google) which reveals the reason for this statistic: "Different countries count differently"
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life - such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat - should be counted as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do notother key quotes from the above article: "underreporting also seems apparent" | "they sometimes reported the deaths of babies in their care as miscarriages or stillbirths" | etc
back to krugman, he gleefully states "This last point is, in a way, good news" since this may lead to his much cherished panacea, tax increases.
i wonder how the professor would handle a student who submitted such poorly researched material....
No comments:
Post a Comment