Friday, February 12, 2010

Adventures in Not Reading the Post

Anyway, there are some words in this article. I haven't read more than the first few of them 'cause, well, fuck you, that's why. Managed to hang on long enough for this, though:

I think it is possible that the lack of insurance has no effect on aggregate mortality statistics. I do not think that this is likely, but I think it's possible.
McArdle's own admission is that it's most likely that her stand on health insurance will kill people. She graciously gives herself a low probability out, though. Good for her!

So spending money on certainly killing people = ok, whereas, spending money on almost certainly savings lives = we can't afford it. We wouldn't wanna waste money on something that isn't certain, eh lady?

5 comments:

Ken Houghton said...

The phrase "I think" is an interesting one, especially as everything that follows indicates she neither does that nor researches.

But those are advantages for economic writing at The Atlantic. One of these days, Clive Crook will tell us what of thirty pieces of silver is worth in 2010.

M. Bouffant said...

I'm sure nothing (or everything, depending on what one wishes to prove) has any effect on "aggregate mortality statistics," whatever they may be.

And I'm a million times surer (Don't need to think or research, I just know!) that lack of insurance has a serious, often fatal effect on (What do they call them now? Oh, yes) people. And not just the ones who suffer & die, but their survivors, & those who do have insurance & pay for the uninsured in higher rates for their insurance. (Not forgetting the greed that's factored in to rising rates.)

Does McA also not realize that (much more important to her) money is lost when the uninsured (& unable to pay huge sums later) go to the emergency room for their cancer or whatever treatment?

Is she really more worried about what stats she can massage to make some point about not everyone really needing insurance? Or does she just want to use the stats (Which will not change even if everybody's insured - probably.) to demonstrate how wonderful American health care is?

Sure, I could read it & find out. But I won't.

Lurking Canadian said...

I'm sure the libertarians have a solution to the problem of people driving costs up by using the emergency room.

After all, if the government didn't force emergency rooms to treat people who don't have insurance, they could just die decently at home and decrease the surplus population.

They just don't mention this "solution" so they can hold it in reserve until the next time the top 1% of wealthy people needs a tax cut to afford their next yacht upgrade.

Clever Pseudonym said...

I can't be bothered to read any of her full-lenght drivel, since I'm pretty sure it's just her blog-length drivel times four. I'll have to trust Ken when he writes that she does no research, which is easy, considering her track record. Welcome to modern journalism, where what Megan thinks is given a voice in the prominent media, sans facts, research, or logic.

Anonymous said...

My first test blog.
my first test blog
[url=http://tboardu.blog.hr] my first test blog [/url]