Monday, April 13, 2015

Math Is Harrrrrrrrrrd

It must be hard for Obamacare supporters:
If you are masochistic enough to read the “reporting” of the legacy media on Obamacare, you will have noticed a spate of recent stories with titles like the following from CNBC: “Health spending post-Obamacare seen $2.5 trillion lower.” This headline is not only awkwardly worded. It is, like the article over which it appears, misleading. It misrepresents a new study from the left-leaning Urban Institute concerning projected health care spending in a way that suggests the nation has saved enormous amounts of money thanks to the “Affordable Care Act.”

This is absurd, of course, but it highlights an underappreciated element of the health care reform debate—the adversarial relationship that exists between Obamacare’s partisans in the press and basic statistics. This running gun battle between math and the media manifests itself in two ways, depending on the limitations of individual journalists: Most just can’t handle the numbers, and are thus easily taken in by specious studies and grifters like Jonathan Gruber. A far smaller group can manage the math but must ignore its implications in order to support “reform.”
Lies, damned lies, and statistics?


Anonymous said...

the grammar.
oh, the humanity, the grammar.

maxutils said...

Liberals, particularly, seem to want to beat bad statistics like a red-headed step child … I long for the first study which examines the FULL cost of health care, including subsidies, intangibles (longer waits) increased deductibles, etc. It will not be a rosy view, which is why it won't be forthcoming.