Visualizations : Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans' (A Lie that Promotes Big Government) : You would think so. But, some...

cgreen saved this snapshot

Health Care Lie: ’47 Million Uninsured Americans (A Lie that Promotes Big Government)

Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM

Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance. So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC. Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up. Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

This graphic is crummy. It is not readily apparent that the creator intended for bars 3 through 8 (from left to right) to add up to bar 2 which is a significant fraction of bar 1 (or at least that is what I think is supposed to happen). You really only need one bar which is sectioned off into the various “lie” segments.
And another thing: data should speak for itself. If you have to write “lie” in parentheses beside each relevant bar, then the graphic will never come across as a statistical display of reality. It will instead come off as an unscientific, jumble of not impartial, qualitative assessments (which this appears to be).

This is political hackery, not serious data analysis. The creator appears to have little familiarity with Census survey methods, health insurance issues, or social science. The Census research is performed by serious researchers. If someone has a quarrel with their methods, then be specific.

The claim seems to be that if families don’t spend their money as right-wing hacks think they should, then they don’t count. How arrogant.

I don’t think there’s a problem including all of those categories when you talk about the number of insured Americans.

What does it mean to be “able” to afford health care and “choose” not to have it? I currently don’t have health care but I might be able to afford it in theory. However, I’m healthy and only 23, and don’t have much money. You could say I am “choosing” to be uninsured but considering how expensive it is, I haven’t done that. I have instead “chosen” to take the risk. This isn’t actually good for me though, because if I get seriously sick, I won’t really be able to afford to pay for my health care. Also, I can’t currently afford to see a dentist. By the way, I just graduated from MIT and now work on campus doing research, so it’s not like I am not skilled or don’t work hard. I just don’t make enough to have $400 a month to spare on a very risky gamble.

The reason insurance works is that it spreads the risk for everyone. If we had a national health service it would spread that risk even more and reduce the burden on any individual. Bureaucracy costs would be decreased by having one system for everyone. We would also save money by reducing emergency room costs with better preventative care. It would be more humane and more efficient to provide national health care services to everyone.