Uncategorized

POLICY: Now they are saying that there are fewer uninsured?

As if this one couldn’t be seen coming a mile off.

When you have nothing to say about an issue, change the numbers. In the 1980s the Thatcher government in Britain reduced the number of unemployed at a stroke by changing the way they counted them. If you were not eligible to collect benefit because, say, your husband or wife earned too much, then — Hey Presto! — you weren’t unemployed any more, even if you’d been laid off and couldn’t find a new job. Now we hear that the Administration is saying that the CPS apparently overcounts the number of uninsured.
And this is from the clowns who brought us guarantees that WMDs were in Iraq and that the invasion of said nation would be paid for by the oil revenue, as our soldiers would be greeted with sweets and flowers. And we should trust them over decades of decent research by the census bureau why?

Oh, and Thatcher changed the counting to try to stop the unemployment number going over the political sensitive 3 million number.  But for all her efforts it went over that number under the new counting system within a few months anyway.  And anyone who doesn’t think we’ve got a crisis going on in uninsurance here either has never tried to buy health insurance in the individual market, or just doesn’t get out enough.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as: ,

7
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
gadflyJCnewbiewonk Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
gadfly
Guest
gadfly

Prioritizing is one thing, rendering people disposable is another. When politicians reject a basic support measure because “people might come out of the woodwork”, they are admitting that a number of people out there don’t have a basic means of support. /But who is rich?/ Red herring. Why are we worrying about who gets labelled as rich when the issue is who has no access to basic means of support? //But I do realize that government has a responsibility to its citizens.// I also give you that these problems don’t necessarily have to be addressed by federal government. And it… Read more »

JC
Guest
JC

Numbers don’t communicate the hardships (housing, food, healthcare, jobs) many people go through. However, all politics, and civilization in general, is about prioritizing available resources. Yeah, it sucks that some “valuable” program gets cut in favor of another “valuable” program. Its very easy to argue class bias (rich v poor). But who is rich? What number do you use to determine rich? Forget the obvious, actors, policiticians, CEOs. I am fearful of these ambigous class bias arguments because they don’t seek to resolve issues on the merits of the need but simply use strategies the entertainment business has been using… Read more »

gadfly
Guest
gadfly

Some thoughts on govt. cooking the books – all non-expert and/or anecdotal. I have an friend who is a professional economist, and he has tried to explain how the government tries to hide inflation. All I remember is it has something about manipulating the basket of goods that prices are based on, and also particularly the way efficiencies created by technology are factored in as production. I’m particularly suspicious of government statistics that come from the Dept. of Labor. Let’s say academics are trying to project health coverage from employment statistics. The government wants unemployment statistics to be as low… Read more »

JC
Guest
JC

I totally agree, gadfly. I don’t believe everything single thing I read. The healthy skeptism that is your infer cuts both ways…when the numbers agree with your point of view and when they don’t. The original posting seems to only show skeptism when the number don’t agree with a point of view. That viewpoint expressed was based mostly on personal experience. Again, I am not denying that there is a problem with uninsured in America. I just believe it is a little hypocritical to become a “learned skeptic” only when number disagree with your viewpoint. Throwing the analogy of WMD… Read more »

gadfly
Guest
gadfly

JC – don’t be so quick to believe academics. You might want to ask if the academic work is largely based on analysis of government statistics. Academic studies tend to fall downstream of the “spadework”.

JC
Guest
JC

I don’t think anyone is saying there isn’t a problem with the growing number of uninsureds. But simply accepting a number that agrees with your point of view and ignoring everything else is no different that the WMD issue you point out. The Census bureau puts out a number that shows a whopping 45 million uninsured and everyone accepts it as true!? C’mon that’s little naive, you sound like Colin Powell at the UN. Flaws in the reporting have been documented before (the question does not seek to find how long someone has been uninsured). In fact, another Census report… Read more »

newbiewonk
Guest
newbiewonk

What about the number of **underinsured**? Does then census bureau or the Bush administration have anything to say about that?