Four more on Obamacare

Truly excellent point by Megan McArdle:

And this is true of every idea that starts with “All we need to do.” If “All we need to do” to fix some substantial problem were cheap and politically popular, it would already have been done, and we wouldn’t be talking about it. The stuff we argue about is, almost by definition, the stuff that’s hard.

Obamacare makes health care affordable in the same way rent controls have made big-city apartments affordable: "These Patients Are Covered by Obamacare But Can’t Afford Treatment".

"Democrat Response To Obamacare’s Death Spiral Proves They Lied To SCOTUS".

"Obamacare and the Prognosticators".

"The one thing Trump and Clinton agree on is infrastructure. This economist thinks they’re both wrong."

Excellent point by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser.

“My biggest fear is that we’re not actually going to fix the biggest problems we have,” he says of these proposals. “Instead we’ll just end up with more highways in North Dakota or more white elephant projects that deliver little value.”

It’s not that Glaeser is against infrastructure. America’s roads and airports are vital, and they really do need upgrades. But the way the federal government currently addresses these issues is badly flawed. Congress hands large checks to states, which often just build shiny new roads rather than fixing existing ones. Instead of targeting urgent needs, federal spending often goes toward questionable projects like Detroit’s little-used monorail or California’s troubled high-speed rail or roads and interchanges of dubious value. Infrastructure spending is rarely evidence-based; few projects go through rigorous cost-benefit analysis.