FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

While we are talking about distortions why don't we discuss 2 very, very commonly used statistics. The first is based on WHO rankings and the second is based on # uninsured.


#1: US ranks 37th in the world in health care

This is based on the WHO rankings, which if you are not familiar with, you will be surprised to see what it is made up of. The WHO rankings are a ranking of how socialized a system is and not the quality of health care. They were so controversial in 2000 when they were published that the WHO has not released another ranking. So let me break it down for you.

The rankings are made from 5 factors weighted as below:
1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy” which on the surface makes sense as a measure of the health of a country. Life expectancy is related to many factors not related to health care. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth. So basically take out the things not tied to health care and our life expectancy actually is the best. Hmmm... wonder why the WHO didn't do that...

“Financial fairness”- this one is a joke and is essentially a political tool pushing more socialized systems. It measures the % of income spent on health care which means it places a more value on systems that force the wealthy to pay for the country's health care. This factor doesnt measure the quality of health care but rather how the costs are "equaled" out. So a country in which all health care is paid for by the gov't via a progressive tax system but delivers terrible care, would score perfectly in this ranking. Well, seems like this is not a measure of a health care system at all but rather the intentions of the WHO to push their political agenda. This allows socialized systems to seem better without them having to be better.

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, another thing that does not actually measure the quality of health care delivery. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal” but terrible health care throughout the system.

So you see the WHO rankings are BS. They artificially prop up socialized systems where things are "equal" and the cost is placed on the wealthy. Notice that 62.5% of the rankings are based on how socialist a system is. So if obama's plan goes through, without anyone even getting care through the obama plan, our rankings in the WHO rankings would immediately skyrocket without our healthcare actually changing. How is that a measure of health care then?
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````


#2- 46 million Americans are uninsured because they cannot afford coverage

Again, a commonly cited statistic that ostensibly shows just how bad the American system is. All the data comes directly from the US census bureau. 46 million is usually cited by people trying to promote gov't expansion to "fix" the problem. They use it to show that people cannot afford health care. This figure, like the last, is very misleading.

Let me break it down for you:

a) 10 million of those "46 million" are not US citizens.

b) 17 million more can afford health insurance but chose not to buy it- 8.3 million make $50-75K and 8.7 million make $75K -100K

note: $50,000 is between 200-300% of the poverty level for a family of 4. $100K is 450% of the poverty level for a family of 4.

c) 10-14 more million are eligible for gov't programs like Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP but don't apply for it or did not list it in the Census report (but were found to be part of these programs).

d) 5-10 Million were uninsured only temporarily. The number from the survey was a snap shot and also includes those between jobs who are temporarily insurance-less but end up getting insurance during the year.

Now there is some overlap between these groups that has not yet been accounted for. The work here has already been done for us by Anthem as well as a few other groups all with the same findings.

The study by Anthem bluecross blue shield in 2003 looked at the overlap, those who chose not to buy insurance as well as those temporarily uninsured. The real number of uninsured Americans is 8.2 million

Convenient that no one cites this number. I guess soap boxing is harder to do with a statistic like 2.7% actually dont have health care because they cannot afford it. 2.7% is not a statistic that would move people to action though.

I'm sure we can trust Anthem, a for-profit insurance company, to give us accurate, dependable numbers indicating that there's really no healthcare coverage problem, so nothing really needs to be changed ...

Just like all the Republicans keep earnestly quoting studies from the Lewin Group, a "respected" healthcare think tank, but fail to mention that the Lewin Group is just a division of United Healthcare, another for-profit insurance company ...

PS -- Just because you don't agree with the WHO rankings, that doesn't make them "BS."

Oh it wasn't just anthem. The Kaiser Family Foundation found the exact same findings as Anthem because the data is directly from the US census bureau. It is not skewable. In case you didn't know, the kaiser family foundation is a liberal non-profit organization that is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries. Fight all you want but the data is solid, the analysis is the same between both those with conflicts of interest (anthem) and those without (KFF).

The WHO rankings are supposed to rank health care systems. When they do not actually rank health care they are poor rankings. When their rankings skew data in favor of their own ideals they are poor rankings (and biased i might add). When a health care system could shoot up in the rankings just by change how health care is paid for without actually changing who gets care, the quality of care, availability of care or any other measure of actual care, they are poor rankings.

62.5% of the rankings were based directly on how socialized the system was, not on the care the system delivers. That is obsurd. The only measure of actual care did not have its confounders controlled. Counfounders not controlled for: namely lifestyle, accidents/homocides, definitions of life/birth, and many others. Guess what, you control those confounders and our rank jumps very, very considerably.

Are we the best, still probably not. We have improvements to be made (universal, compatible EMR for one) but we are not 37th.

This is the same as ther government plan. You will be given a list of providers who participate in the plan, just as in your insurance.

I received in an e-mail a request to "Please act today by joining the League and donating to us today"

It was titled "Obama's 5 Big Lies on Healthcare". Here they are with my thoughts in bold.

#1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
An employer can change insurance carriers NOW and in the future with or without healthcare reform.

#2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
No evidence that this is a lie. They quote a NYT editorial.

#3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
This claim of a lie is not true.

#4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
I don't know whether it does or not and neither does this group. But who do they think should be denied healthcare?

#5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
They will be treated in the ER just as they are now. That's all. Nothing changes.

I didn't add links because I've already posted the House and Senate bills.
So whoever wants to claim these alleghations are true I will look at quotes with links. Facts not suppositions.