Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Fuzzy Health Care Math

A commenter asked who the 46 million uninsured are. Fuzzy Health Care Math from NetRightNation tells us.

"In other words, some 31.85 million people reported as uninsured in 2006 did have some coverage, and the Census included them in both categories. Why? They were probably between jobs at some point during the year, which is not abnormal.


It therefore makes no sense to screw over the 285 million who already have coverage by completely reorganizing the entire system to offer welfare to some 13.6-15.05 million without it."

Hat tip: Blue Collar Muse


Ellen said...

You've got to get your nose out of those wingnut blogs and stats. Did they also tell you how Obama is going to kill grannie?

You talk about losing freedom? Are you also a "birther" and a creationist as well?

You know who really stands to lose in this health care debate? The insurance companies. Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428% from 2000 to 2007, while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets. (not to mention the record drug company profits).

So how do they pull this off? By producing fear and bogus stats that people like Kay Brooks spout to make themselves feel better about their ignorant political stance.

Example: stats most often cited by Republicans come from the Lewin Group. A huge GOP contributor, they are wholly owned by United Health, one of the nations largest insurance companies.The Lewin Group paid $400 million in a settlement after being accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers rip off consumers by distributing skewed data. Creating these bogus stats is nothing new. The Lewin group had been doing this since 1994.

If you would read the report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan research and policy institute, you might understand the statistics. They are consistent with stats from previous years that show a continuous growth in the % of the uninsured. Wonder why these stats were never an issue before when Bush was president and big pharm and insurance companies were raking it in hand over fist?

Kay Brooks said...

Yes I talk about losing freedom. Proudly. Other than life itself, there is nothing more precious and more worth fighting for. Is freedom of such little worth to you that you're willing to give it away in this HUGE government power grab?

Money can be made. Freedom must be defended and fought for.

And if what keep prices high includes 'lack of competition in the private health insurance industry' shouldn't the answer be how to promote competition...not government take over?

How about letting us buy insurance across state lines? How about letting US pick what we want in a plan instead of the government telling us what must be covered? How about allowing affinity groups like the bridge club or church members create a group plan?

The answer is NOT government take over of the health care industry. That's absolutely no competition.

Eric said...

Here's Barney Frank's vision for "competition":


I guess he is part of the "fear and bogus stats" too?

How is "single payer" not a monopoly?

If Obamacare is such a great idea, why does Congress refuse to submit to it themselves? Obamacare for thee, but not for me? Seems like they would want to take care of themselves doesn't it?

Kay Brooks said...

Great link, Eric. I've seen some of his stuff before.

Check out his long term survival rates US v Europe chart: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/5-yr-cancer-survival-rates-us-dominates.html .

Ellen said...

It's amazing. Like a parallel universe. There's reality, then there's 'wingnut reality.'

Off the subject but take for example a tale of two headlines. You remember the attorney firing scandal?

Today, CNN and every other mainstream media headline:
"Papers show Rove, Miers role in attorney firing"

Faux News:
"Rove: Politics Played No Role in Firings"

Of course, Rove was caught red-handed and is now trying to blame his aid, like Cheney did with Libby. But in wingnut 'reality' (fantasy), he did nothing wrong.

Just an example. Amazing isn't it? You can live a life in denial and misperceptions. Just keep it tuned to wingnut media and you'll always hear what you want to hear.

Kay Brooks said...

Seriously, Ellen, if all you're going to do is name call and go off topic in order to provide your view of the alternate universe and have absolutely no intention of holding a conversation--move on and don't waste your time or ours. Or do you get paid for this nonsense?

Nashteach said...

Perhaps that's what Barney Frank and the far left of the Democratic House want, but Obama has not been pushing for single payer. And it seems like the Blue Dogs, who are certainly not for single payer, are winning out over Frank and other far left Reps. like Kucinich and Weiner.

So if you are against single payer, you and the President have something in common. If he's for it why are these doctors who do want single payer so upset with Obama?


Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead

Corporate Crime Reporter
March 3, 2009
President Obama’s White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.
Obama doesn’t even want to discuss it.
Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).
Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.
Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.
During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President’s Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.
Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors — Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young — to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.
Obama would have none of it.
This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House — no invite.
Why not?
Well, believe it or not, the Obama White House is under the thumb of the health insurance industry.
Obama has become the industry’s chief enforcer of its key demand: single payer health insurance is off the table.
Earlier this week, Obama named his health reform leadership team — Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Nancy-Ann DeParle.
Single payer advocates were not happy.

Nashteach said...

Here's the problem with NetRightNation's math, which is fuzzy:

The numbers really cannot lie, although the report does. Out of a total population of 297.05 million, the report states on Page 20 that the "number of people covered by private insurance was... 201.7 million in 2006" and the "number of people covered by government health programs was... 80.3 million in 2006.Therefore, 282 million had insurance. Which means that out of a total population of 297.05 million, 15.05 million did not have insurance. Right?"

Wrong. They assume the two groups are mutually exclusive, but plenty of folks on medicare have supplemental private insurance, so those folks would appear on both sets; to truly get the number of uninsured netrightnation would need to determine how many medicare patients buy "medigap."

I would say this might be tough for them to figure out; except there it is on page 20 below the graph:

The estimates by type of coverage are not mutually exclusive; people can be covered by more than one type of health insurance during the year.

Eric said...


If he's against single payer health care, then who the heck is this?


Nashteach said...

Someone running for office as opposed to serving in office. Like Bush said "I'm against nation building" and then rebuilt two nations once he started actually governing. And Reagan who ran on "cutting government" but then oversaw big increases in federal expenditures.

If you want to call him a flip-flopper, that's fair, but it seems you are simply ignoring that he has shifted to the middle on the issue, as many politicians do once they are actually governing. As President, as bills have emerged from Congress, he has been consistently against a single payer system.

Ellen said...

As one congressman said recently at a town hall... "I've got facts on my side, you've got Glenn Beck on yours."

That pretty much sums it up.

Your 'quest for freedom' is rooted in Glenn Beck and the other ignorant emotional zealots, simply clueless Obama haters. Recently, we've seen some of these people interviewed. You should check out that moron freak show ... talk about clueless. That's not an America I'm proud of. You want to stand with those ignorant fools? Go ahead, see what it does for you.

Where were these people that are suddenly concerned with government cost when Bush launched a war that has cost the USA $200 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY - everyday ... for several years? Suddenly they are concerned with cost? Can you see how disingenuous and inconsistent this is?

Eric said...

Glad to see you agree he is no better than Bush. Federal spending doubled from 1996 to 2008. We just doubled it again in six months. Same policies, just a different name. Gas was $1.46 per gallon when Obama was elected. When are we going to end Obama's war for oil? Why is he sending more troops to the Middle East? How many millions is this war for oil costing us per day, etc., etc...

..."it seems you are simply ignoring that he has shifted to the middle on the issue"

No, just that I don't believe what he says. I can't decide which version of Obama is telling the truth- if any. So, are you expecting him to veto the healthcare bill since it doesn't say what he is currently saying?

Should we expect another 3AM 300-page addendum just before the vote?

Kay Brooks said...

The topic is the current health care/insurance bill, Ellen. Not Bush, not the war on terror, not Glen Beck.

This is your last warning. One more post of name calling that doesn't move the conversation along with facts about the issue instead of personal attacks on those you disagree with and I'll start removing your comments.

Got it? You want to soil a sandbox with vitriol...get your own.

Eric said...

The Huffington Post now joins the ranks of the "wingnut blogs"...or is it the "angry mob"?


Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

Nashteach said...

Glad to see you agree he is no better than Bush.

Not what I said, Eric. You seem to be making false assertions about what others say rather than actually addressing what they say. Come on, you're smarter than that.

Federal spending doubled from 1996 to 2008.

That is troubling and I'm against a lot of it. Personally, I could find a lot to cut. But on health insurance I do have some serious issues with the staus quo. One is that it is inhumane that sick people are denied coverage. I believe insurance companies are playing with the deck stacked in their favor big time. Second, the costs of health care are rising too quickly. As a capitalist, I am very concerned that this portion of our economy is hurting the other parts. It's hurting corporate profits, it's hurting the middle class, it's hurting state and local government. Folks are going bankrupt and losing everything because they get sick. And the realities of that bug me more than holding a strict adherence to an ideological purism of small government. But, like Obama, I'd prefer we allow folks who want to to keep their private plans if they wish to. I'd prefer gvernment regulate the industry rather than take it over.

No, just that I don't believe what he says.

If it were that simple, you wouldn't have believed it when he said he was for single payer back when he said it. It seems more like you want to erroneously call what he's pushing for now "single payer" because it would indeed be easier to defeat.

Gas was $1.46 per gallon when Obama was elected.

Gas is almost always cheaper in the cold months.

So, are you expecting him to veto the healthcare bill since it doesn't say what he is currently saying?

You aren't being honest about his position on health care, or the nature of the bill, so I'm not going to answer a question based on false premises.

Nashteach said...

And yes, I'm disappointed we are still spending so much money on Iraqi and Afghanis rather than Americans.

Ellen- breathe, girl. If the facts are on your side stick to them.

Eric said...

"If it were that simple, you wouldn't have believed it when he said he was for single payer back when he said it."

Now who is asserting?

I don't believe him now because it is the exact opposite of what he said then.

A lot like how we would have five days to see every bill before he voted on it, his under-the-table deal with big pharma the Huffers reported on, no tax increases for 95% of Americans that he is now back-pedaling on and shifting the blame on IRS-crook appointee Geitner.

If they are CFR members it doesn't matter what letter is behind their name, we will only have more of the same. Obama is just the next puppet in line. More government control, less liberty. They are counting on sheep to keep up the R vs. D pro wrestling match.