It's Good in and of Itself!

By -

Business Insider ranks countries on health. One of the "plus" factors is you get more points the more the government spends on health care.

What the hey? If that spending is effective, shouldn't it show up in some other health stat? And if it doesn't... why is it a positive factor?



Comments

  1. Andy3:38 PM

    Oh sure, Gene can ask us questions, but we can't ask him questions.

    Anyhow, good point. Certainly at the individual or family level we wouldn't treat health care spending (or even government health care spending on our behalf) as evidence of health. Quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BZ1:11 AM

    are my comments getting approved?

    ReplyDelete
  3. BZ1:25 AM

    It seems that my comments on your march 23 post about walter block aren't getting through.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BZ6:47 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BZ9:59 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BZ11:51 PM

    What's your next blog post going to be about?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more