Last week, Jean Hiebert-White, executive publisher of Health Affairs, took me to task for suggesting that her publication had devolved into just another media conduit for Democrat talking points.
Hiebert-White’s case isn’t helped by this post at the Health Affairs blog boasting that the barage of balderdash fired by Joe Biden during the VP debate included a phony stat from the very article I criticized:
In the vice presidential debate last night, Democratic VP candidate Sen. Joe Biden (DE) cited an estimate from a recent article in Health Affairs that 20 million Americans would lose their employer-sponsored coverage under the health reform plan advanced by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ).
The problem here is that the “20 million” figure is not the product of thoughtful, objective analysis. It is vaporware based on long-ago-debunked models created by left-leaning economist Jonathan Gruber.
The editorial standards of Health Affairs have clearly been relaxed for partisan purposes. There was a time when such politicized nonsense would never have passed muster at that venerable publication.
Comments 2
The truth is that no one knows with any precision what either Obama’s or McCain’s health policies will do. All the serious analysis does however point to Obama’s being better for ordinary Americans (like Ms Palin). But the chances of either of the reforms taking place, no matter who is elected, I put at close to zero given the inertia in your checks and balances federal system. The real BS is talking it all up as a near reality.
Posted 03 Oct 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶That is like saying that all the serious analysis shows a UTI is better for odinary Americans than Strep throat. Plus, I have yet to see any serious analysis that shows either is workable. Most make broad assumptions or use questionable data.
Posted 06 Oct 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶Post a Comment