A lesson for David Axelrod
[[See Update at the end of this post]]
I guess Obama’s handlers have entered the paralytic stage. Here’s Obamacon David Axelrod a day or two ago on Meet the Press: “I think that health care, over time, is going to become more popular.”
Jaw-dropping, what? Just why, Dave, do you think it will become more popular? I mean, it was unpopular before it passed and has become steadily less popular since.
So what was his reason? Here’s the main one: “people are focused on this economy right now — they’ve got anxiety about this economy. That’s what’s driving the vote right now.”
Right you are, Dave! And you know what, they are going to become more anxious. Why? Because the administration you serve is clueless when it comes to the economy.
How do I know? How’s this for desperation row: When Vice-President Joe Biden spoke about the “summer of recovery” (remember that?) he wasn’t (as it turns out now) talking about jobs—oh, no, he was talking about construction projects. That’s what the administration’s latest magic man, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, told Fox News this weekend. “The vice president was talking about the summer of recovery in reference to the Recovery Act, that you would see the creation of a series of infrastructure and other projects ramping up over the summer.” He said it with a straight face, too!
But back to Mr. A-Rod. One reason that I could hardly suppress a snort when I read the account of his comments about the popularity of the the Obama health care disaster was that, just moments before, a friend sent me a list of statistics that have been making their way around cyber space. (See stats on next page.)
The section labeled “Number of MRI Scanners…”, should not have percentages next to the numerals. That is a ratio of actual machines per 1 million people, not a percentage. This item in particular brings doubt to the item. These percentages don’t have much weight without the origin of their statistics, or the organization from which they are derived.
This is not to say that the figures aren’t accurate. I think that they probably are, given the differences between the semi-free system of the U.S. and the predominantly socialized systems of Canada and U.K. There’s just no references to support these ones in particular.
I was just going to say the same thing. I’d hate to think that only 71% of a scanner is available for a million people.
Glad I’m not the only one to notice that the MRI answer is nonsensical. Because of that howler I have no faith in anything else on that list; the MRI thing couldn’t have gotten past anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics. It’s a shame because I’ll bet the rest of the answers are close to the truth, but I won’t be circulating it until the MRI answer has been fixed and some citations are provided to back up the specifics behind the other percentages.
Those statistics might not be true — “snopes” finds them a hoax. Still, there are studies that back up what the statistics (and Roger) say: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115086.php
Mr. Tweed, why would we believe Snopes? The only reference they had (last time I looked) when anyone questioned anything about Obama was a direct quote out of “Dreams From My Father”. Now that would be an autobiography and would anyone lie in their own book????????
Snopes.com is run by a Left wing couple who are avid Obama supporters; it is incredible anyone would use their data.
Ooh! Ooh! How long till we see an item at Snopes debunking that urban myth?
John wrote “Snopes.com is run by a Left wing couple who are avid Obama supporters; it is incredible anyone would use their data.”
(Sigh) Is that phony email claim going around again?
Huh. Where do you go to check on myths about Snopes?
Memo for David Axelrod: You had a choice between health care and ObamaCare. You chose ObamaCare, so you shall have neither.
I have also found that Snopes’ coverage of political items leans left. It might take time to get reliable sources for all those statistics, but I expect it could be done using legitimate peer-reviewed journals or official government sources. (I’m just not motivated to do it myself.)
France has a pretty good health care system which is free choice for doctor and patient. Doctors’ incomes are lower but medical school is free. The patient can go to any doctor but, if the doctor charges more than the flat fee the health plan pays, the patient pays the difference. Thus, you get some subsidy but you can also pay if you want more. This is not true of Canada, The UK or Medicare and most US insurance. One problem France has, though. The British retirees are all signing up for the French system that is designed just to care for the poor. They refuse to go home for care and it is costing France a fortune.
Thanks for the link Harris. Without seeing the Snopes piece I am very wary of buying into a chart that has no link or documentation to back it up. As somebody who’s totally opposed to Obamacare, I’m very disappointed that you would use this Mr. Kimball.
@harris tweed : “Snopes” does not find them a hoax. A post on the Snopes forum confirms that the numbers appeared in an article in Investors Business Daily, and then people in the forum analyzed the numbers with no particular conclusion.
@john : as “Snopes” did not debunk the story, your casting of aspersions on everyone who uses the site fails too.
=darin
Mr. Kimball:
I’ve read your work for a long time, and have always admired it until now. For the life of me, I can’t believe you would do something so stupid as to include these factoids with no way to document them, or back them up. It would have been so much better if this hadn’t been published at all. You have done real damage to your reputation. How could you have done something so dumb?
Wait until the individual mandate takes hold. America is filled with families that are just barely scraping together enough money to pay the mortgage and keep the bill collectors at bay. Wait until every one of those families realize that they are now going to be forced to either pay tens of thousands of dollars for health insurance for their families, or thousands of dollars per year in fines for not being insured. Think housing and mortgages are shaky now? Wait until the Obamacare foreclosure wave hits. People are going to be literally selling their houses at panic prices or walking away from their mortgages just to pay the Obamacare penalties for not being insured.
Only then will we see the true cost and popularity of Obamacare.
How about civil disobedience? Stop being sheeple! If the government can’t control 12 million illegal aliens, how will be force 100 million Americans to sign up for obamacare? I’m not doing it, folks. Stand up for your freedom. I don’t take my orders from nancy pelosi or harry reid.
Source for data might be Fraser Institute in Canada? At least for Canadian stats? I doubt Roger K would use junk numbers but indeed let’s find out the provenance. The main argument is true: Hopeycare is Nocare.
At 57 years of age, I admit that I have never had health insurance. It just never seemed to be a valuable expense. Also, in my adult life, I’ve never been to a doctor. Oh, I’ve had the various maladies that come with life, but I have let time heal. It helps to know that these bodies we inhabit are phenomal self healing machines. I think this obsession with health care is a chick thang. Of that I will not comment, but if you’re a man, and are not born sickly, don’t waste money ‘insuring’ your health.
Jim, I’m obviously a chick, and I’m with you. People go running to the doctor every time they sneeze. My mom brought us up to wait a day or two and see if it goes away. Usually it does. Unless it’s an obvious emergency, waiting isn’t going to hurt a thing. Antibiotics aren’t the answer for many problems, unless you like repeat visits to the doctor. I’m prone to bladder infections, and have found that d-mannose works much better to prevent and cure those pesky things than any antibiotic. Much cheaper, too. You need to take responsibility for your own health. I learned a long time ago that doctors don’t know it all. I have no plans to sign up for obamacare or to pay for it, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes
It’s true they’re a couple. Open Secrets did not find political donations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes
This guy says they’re liberal Dems.
http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/02/snopes-exposed.html
What article are these “Snopes” comments referring to?
France? I that the same country where a few years ago about 14,000 Frenchmen died in a heat wave because, among other things, most of the doctors, nurses etc were at the beach?
I don’t mean to be antagonistic or anything but concerning the unsubstantiated statistics,
It’s not about getting my knickers in a twist, it’s about wanting to be sure that my information is documented and solid. The last thing I want to do is discuss or debate an issue and throw out information that I can’t feel confident is confirmed. I would hope most people discussing serious issues feel the same.
A-Rod’s right – once Obamacare is repealed healthcare will be more popular.
It would be a fair assumption to say that all those who were behind the writing and implementation of Obamacare entirely believe(d) in Darwinism. These are delusional people. The ones most entrenched in Darwinism believe as long as you get something that looks like a train on the tracks that things will work out, because they are under the spell of some kind of perceived “life energy” that they believe will make things work out (progressive faith). Subconsciously, they also are aware of the short time they have to “see their own evolution, and their visions carried out” in their lifetime – which, for those with power results in leaps-of-faith. This was also in play with college students during the election that created the hard push for Obama (their portion of power, their vote, resulted in a leap-of-faith vote for the unknown. They believe that Evolution favors them because of their believing in it! More delusion. (And, of course, that would be denied, but wouldn’t it be interesting to put Richard Dawkins on a polygraph and ask him if he believed he was more evolved as a result of his thinking being aligned with the truth of Evolution?) It’s false faith, for one thing, and it is dangerous when leaders have it. I hate to sound like a one-trick pony with Darwinism, but it is a silent premise that has real implications for how a person reasons.
And how many world leaders accept Evolution?… uh-oh…
Yeah. Darwinism is a false faith. Except that genetics tends to confirm it.
Oh. And the Catholic Church is OK with it.
Plus – being unable to refute it the anti-Darwinists are OK with micro-evolution. In another three generations they may actually do what the Catholics have done – say God works through evolution. Why not? “He” seems OK with working through gravity and the speed of light.
Of course there are holes in the evidence. We are not at the acme of knowledge on the subject. We are just beginning. In a hundred or two hundred years when we know as much about genetics as we do about F=ma the anti-Darwinists will find something else about science they don’t like and start a fight.
OTOH the leftys don’t like IQ. Probably because it is not a good predictor for individuals (it also violates their egalitarian dreams) but does rather well re: groups. We want IQ 130s flying our aircraft not IQ 90s. Which is not to say all 130s are good at it (all other things being equal) or that a 90 can’t do the job. But that is the way to bet. Oh. Yeah. IQ is hereditary. The anti-Darwinists better keep an eye on that one.
Mr. Kimball:
After un-ensnarling my knickers I just would like to make two points:
1.): Thank you for providing the sources for your last post. Amazon sold another book, and I got to visit Rep. Kirk’s website. I only want to get the facts straight, and to be able to verify them. I’m in contact with a lot of smart people who unfortunately are on the left. I think it’s a defense mechanism they use, when one of their cherished gods (healthcare as it was passed last spring) is shown to be much worse than they thought, to scream about “documentation”, “sources”, whatever.
2.) Surely you don’t think that just because something is going round in “cyber space” that that makes it automatically true? If you do, I’ve got some spam and viruses I’d like to forward to you! In the future I think I’d drop that argument for validation.
Thank you.