« I Need To Go On Fewer Man Dates | Main | Outsourced Commentary »
December 05, 2007
Why Oh Why Can't We Have A Better Press Corps?
By the way, lets be really clear about what's going on in this Kit Seelye piece: In evaluating a policy debate between two Democratic candidates for president, Seelye went to a right wing think tank (AEI) and asked them to adjudicate. They picked the more conservative plan. Proof!
And the actual reasoning of the piece is, and excuse my intemperance, absolutely idiotic. It's so bad, that I'm betting Seelye misquoted the AEI guy, because think tank employees at least know how to sound rigorous. Here's how Seelye comes to the conclusion that Clinton's plan may cover more people than Obama's: First she says, "Mandates have not worked with auto insurance. While all drivers are required to have it, 15 percent of the nation’s drivers have none, according to the Insurance Research Council."
Then she wanders over to AEI where she hears, "Mr. Obama’s health plan could actually have a better compliance rate. The 15 million who would supposedly be left out equal about 5 percent of the population — a smaller portion than are going without auto insurance, said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan[!] group."
So start with a fallacious comparison -- health mandates to auto insurance -- and assume perfect equivalency. Then, take the number without auto insurance, so a number from data set X. Then, take the number who'll possibly lack health coverage in Obama's plan, from data set Y. Then compare the two. I almost can't express how ridiculously innumerate the logic is. Suffice to say, Seelye could have called an actual health care expert and asked what the modeling on the two plans showed. That she instead looked at auto insurance for one number and then health care for another is bad enough. But in evaluating Clinton's plan, she also pretended that the only relevant policy was the mandate -- subsidies, access, employer mandates, etc are all ignored. Probably because she's never read the policy and doesn't know how it works. She is, after all, a campaign reporter, not a policy expert of any type. But as an educated person, working with editors and fact checkers, somebody should have noticed that this would be like me comparing car crashes to bed wetting simply because both are called "accidents."
If I'd read her article on a blog, I'd assume the author a fool and never read it again. Instead, this is in The New York Times.
December 5, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Having a cubicle in a corporate media outlet means never having to say you're sorry. Or something. Anyway that seems to be the primary qualification for the title Journalist.
Posted by: AJ | Dec 5, 2007 3:16:50 PM
Well, I think it's safe to assume who the Gray Lady is supporting for the presidency.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 5, 2007 3:23:13 PM
"... like me comparing car crashes to bed wetting simply because both are called 'accidents.'"
Oh my heaven--that is hilarious.
Posted by: Winslow | Dec 5, 2007 3:25:07 PM
Ezra: You didn't even cite this little gem from her piece:
The experience in Massachusetts, which has enacted universal coverage with a mandate that everyone obtain health insurance, shows how difficult it is to force everyone to comply. About 20 percent of people in that state do not have health insurance even with the mandate.
AFAIK, before the legislation Massachusetts (my state by the way) had something like 10 % of its population -- or between 500k and 600k -- uninsured. While it's hard to get a handle on exactly what has transpired, my reckoning is that something like 1/2 of those Bay Staters are now covered by insurance plans of one sort or another. That leaves maybe 300,000 or so uncovered, a rate of around 5%.
Better press corps indeed! Better fact checkers, too.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 5, 2007 3:29:34 PM
But as an educated person, working with editors and fact checkers
There's your problem. Kit-Cat is there to spread bullshit. That's her remit, her mandate, her raison d'être. See Daily Howler passim.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 5, 2007 3:40:13 PM
OK, I'm giving you free editorial advice. You are hereby limited to one expletive per week in your posts. Relying on "fucking" every other posts leads to poor and unimaginative writing, which also lends it a juvenile tone which I would think is something you'd want to avoid.
Hey, it's your blog, but trust me, in 10 years you'll look back in embarrassment at all the profanity. Take the time to think of a better way of saying it and your writing will improve.
Posted by: Scott | Dec 5, 2007 3:41:46 PM
Hey Scott, there's a f*cking "contact" button on the f*cking sidebar for f*cking comments like that.
Or did you have some d*mn reason for expressing your f*cking criticism publicly?
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 5, 2007 3:47:13 PM
Those pearls suit you just peachy, Scott.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 5, 2007 4:00:31 PM
Exhibit A why the press rarely pursues the underlying truth or falsity of particular campaign claims. Most reporters are not capable of making the proper assessment.
You can't bang the mainstream media for not trying to evaluate claims and then bang them for doing a bad job when they try, unless you have some expectation that reporters are capable of doing good policy analysis.
Yeah, and single-payer has a shot, too.
Posted by: Sean | Dec 5, 2007 4:40:47 PM
I think it's wrong that cursing gets everyone's goat so much, but whatever, I don't want Seelye to read this and dismiss the criticism because it has a profanity. Edited.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 5, 2007 4:42:37 PM
Edited?? It still says "a fucking health care expert." Was there previously more profanity than there is now?
Posted by: Tom | Dec 5, 2007 4:58:22 PM
Kit Seelyeis notorious for her right wing spin
Posted by: Mike | Dec 5, 2007 6:00:03 PM
You can't bang the mainstream media for not trying to evaluate claims and then bang them for doing a bad job when they try, unless you have some expectation that reporters are capable of doing good policy analysis.
You know, I'm going to use that excuse on my boss at my next evaluation.
"You can't bang me for not even trying to do my job and then bang me for doing my job half-assed when I do try. Your problem is that you have some kind of unrealistic expectation that I can do my damn job."
I'll bet that will go over really well too.
Posted by: NonyNony | Dec 5, 2007 6:06:36 PM
Hey, it's your blog, but trust me, in 10 years you'll look back in embarrassment at all the profanity.
???????
If it was good enough for Hunter S. Thompson, it's good enough for the rest of us.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 5, 2007 6:23:31 PM
Not all states have mandatory car insurance either. Just saying
Posted by: cheflovesbeer | Dec 5, 2007 8:00:21 PM
Of course this article does a poor job comparing Clinton's and Obama's health care plans. That's not why she wrote it.
Its purpose was to imply that Clinton is disingenuous and/or a liar.
Done!
Posted by: Colin | Dec 6, 2007 8:54:53 AM
"You can't bang the mainstream media for not trying to evaluate claims and then bang them for doing a bad job when they try, unless you have some expectation that reporters are capable of doing good policy analysis."
Why not? Would it be too much to ask them to put a policy journalist on a policy story? It's like in the UK where general news reporters get put on science stories and end up writing gibberish.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Dec 6, 2007 9:08:16 AM
The following is sarcasm:
Why Oh Why Can't We Have A Better Press Corps?
We can we just need to get the Government to take it over like healthcare and be the single provider.
End sarcasm
Posted by: Floccina | Dec 6, 2007 10:14:18 AM
My real answer is because they are soap sellers not information providers. People need to look to other sources for information.
Posted by: Floccina | Dec 6, 2007 10:15:52 AM
Mandated purchase of private health insurance could cost nearly 45% more than Medicare for all:
Private insurance is supposed to add 30% costs (20% insurance provider paperwork and procedure denial machinery and 10% doctors dealing with multiple plans paperwork and fending of denial). 30 is 42.8% of 70: nearly 45%.
The poverty line multiples really need to be cut in half (adjusted for reality if you will) before discussion of income levels even begins — because the federal poverty line is based on the useless (if too obviously understated) measure of three times (3X) the price of the cheapest possible emergency diet (dried beans only, no canned beans please!). The 2002 book, Raise the Floor has a professionally worked out poverty line which comes to twice (2X) the official federal line.
Whatever multiples of poverty a person’s wages may be, some individuals will not be in a position to purchase insurance because of their personal situations, making for potentially tragic situations in a programs supposedly trying to help those most in need. We equally need to take into account the tragic state of wages on the low end in this country thanks to the race to the bottom that began in the early 70s. Our standards for what people should be paid are way off what they would be, in an adequately unionized country for instance — potentially leading to more misjudgment on the impact of mandates on people who really cannot afford them.
The only reason I ever see progressives offering for not advocating Medicare for all as best option is the assumption that politicians will be overwhelmed by the politicking of the insurance companies — no other objection. Seems a weak rationale for throwing their support behind a basically undesirable program right at the beginning of a national discussion. Especially when polls show most Americans support Medicare for all as the ideal way to go. Show a little moxie fellows and maybe one of the politicians will get their courage up and follow you (Huckabee?) — couldn’t happen?
Posted by: Denis Drew | Dec 6, 2007 5:51:55 PM
An ugly quality of mandates enforced via heavy fines -- as I believe is the case in Massachusetts -- is that they too much resemble the action of punitive drug laws: the state is going to seriously harm you if it catches you doing something which could potentially harm yourself.
Comparing health insurance mandates to auto accident mandates doesn't wash: you can decide not buy a car you cannot afford to cover; you cannot decide not to be in the state of being a human being, whether or not you have the ability to cover health insurance.
See my post above about not too casually assuming that varying ability to afford health insurance can be reliably linked to points on an income scale.
Posted by: Denis Drew | Dec 6, 2007 6:05:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
