In today’s American Spectator, I discuss misrepresentations of a new Urban Institute study by Obamacare apologists in the “news” media:
If you read the “reporting” of the legacy media on Obamacare, you will have noticed a spate of stories with titles like the following from CNBC: ‘Health spending post-Obamacare seen $2.5 trillion lower.’ This headline misrepresents a new study from the Urban Institute 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.’
A prominent member of the former cohort is Jonathan Cohn, who writes that the Urban Institute study is ‘one more reason’ to feel good about PPACA. To read the rest of the column, click here.