Comments on: SCHIP: Should it be Allowed to Sink? http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/25/schip-should-it-be-allowed-to-sink/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:09:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/25/schip-should-it-be-allowed-to-sink/#comment-7449 Catron Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:16:05 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/25/schip-should-it-be-allowed-to-sink/#comment-7449 <em>Of course the resident epistemologist said it’s impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children. </em> It's not <em>necessarily</em> impossible to prove, but most of the the people making that claim have been trading in the post hoc fallacy. Of course the resident epistemologist said it’s impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children.

It’s not necessarily impossible to prove, but most of the the people making that claim have been trading in the post hoc fallacy.

]]> By: spike http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/25/schip-should-it-be-allowed-to-sink/#comment-7448 spike Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:31:27 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/25/schip-should-it-be-allowed-to-sink/#comment-7448 This is funny. From the same journal Inquiry: The second study, "The Impact of SCHIP on Insurance Coverage of Children," used MEPS data from 1996 to 2002 and found that SCHIP's eligibility expansions significantly reduced the number of uninsured children and increased the number with public health insurance - both for those targeted by SCHIP and by earlier poverty-related Medicaid expansions. Written by Julie L. Hudson, Thomas M. Selden, and Jessica S. Banthin, all of AHRQ, the study found some evidence that the SCHIP expansions led to a reduction in private insurance, but the authors warn that the crowd-out measures were too imprecise to estimate their significance." Of course the resident epistemologist said it's impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children. So one of their studies is worth quoting, but I'm sure another study from the same journal is irrelevant, right? This is funny. From the same journal Inquiry:
The second study, “The Impact of SCHIP on Insurance Coverage of Children,” used MEPS data from 1996 to 2002 and found that SCHIP’s eligibility expansions significantly reduced the number of uninsured children and increased the number with public health insurance - both for those targeted by SCHIP and by earlier poverty-related Medicaid expansions. Written by Julie L. Hudson, Thomas M. Selden, and Jessica S. Banthin, all of AHRQ, the study found some evidence that the SCHIP expansions led to a reduction in private insurance, but the authors warn that the crowd-out measures were too imprecise to estimate their significance.”

Of course the resident epistemologist said it’s impossible to prove the SCHIP reduced uninsurance among children. So one of their studies is worth quoting, but I’m sure another study from the same journal is irrelevant, right?

]]>