As I’ve previously written, I agree utterly with the Commonwealth Fund scholars that health care in the United States is delivered inefficiently and over bureaucratized. Nevertheless, the suggestion that U.S. health care is the worst overall is not consistent with the data.
Adam Ozimek is shocked – shocked! – that Paul Krugman has recently changed his tune on the merits of discounting the long-run costs of inefficient spending relative to the alleged short-run benefits of such spending. A slice:
I have expected some inconsistency for pundits now that the country’s most prominent Keynesian is a vulgar, bullying, xenophobic Republican. But I expected stagnationists like Krugman would get their complaints out, demand hard bargaining, but accept in the end we should bite the bullet. The extent of the pivot is really something to behold.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development analyzed almost all aid from the United States and other rich nations and found that about one-third is climate-related aid.
This is immoral when 2 billion people suffer from malnutrition, 700 million live in extreme poverty and 2.4 billion are without clean drinking water and sanitation. These problems can be tackled effectively today, helping many more people more dramatically than “climate aid” could.