« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama takes cues from the New York Times, tries to make 3.6 and -7.0 both equal -7.2

Fuzzy Math, Anyone?

The number of uninsured U.S. residents dropped by almost 2 million people in 2007, according to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007(pdf),” a U.S. Census Bureau report released August 26.

In 2006, 47 million people, or 15.8% of the population, were uninsured. In 2007, that number fell to 45.7 million, or 15.3% of the population.

During that time, the number of people with health insurance increased by 3.6 million, from 249.8 million in 2006 to 253.4 million in 2007.

The difference between the 3.6 million more insured figure and the 1.3 million fewer uninsured comes, of course, from overall population changes during the time of the study, as Census Bureau researchers used data from the annual Current Population Survey of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. in compiling their figures.

Apparently those figures — +3.6 million and -1.3 million — did a number (pun intended) on Barack Obama (D-IL), as the freshman Senator responded to the Census Bureau report by saying:

Today’s news confirms what America’s struggling families already know — that over the past seven years, our economy has moved backwards…

an additional 7.2 million Americans have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured. This is the failed record of George Bush’s economic policies that Sen. McCain has called ‘great progress’”

Emphasis added.

Now, it’s no big secret where Obama is getting this number; after all, he simply had to lift it from the New York Times‘ editorial of the same day, which said:

A closer look confirms what Americans already know: most families reaped none of the benefits of the previous six years of solid economic growth. [Ed.-Well, the Times went one farther than Obama with its willingness to acknowledge "solid economic growth."]

[...]

The census offers [a] mirage when it comes to health insurance. While the overall number of uninsured dropped — from 47 million in 2006 to 45.7 million last year — that still left the number of uninsured Americans 7.2 million higher than in 2000.

[...]

What is clear is that economic growth alone will not cut it for most American families. The benefits must be shared more broadly. This means more progressive taxation, increasing access to affordable health care, investing more in public education.

President Bush was too busy cutting taxes on top earners to think about any of these priorities. The next president must do much better.

Though it makes for a good sound byte against President Bush and the Republican presidential nominee (especially when McCain’s “great progress” quote is taken so dishonestly out of its context), the attempt by Obama and The New York Times to compare the increase in insured over the last year to the increase in uninsured over the last seven years is a dishonest meme at best.

If we are going to compare the number of uninsured in 2000 to the total today, it is only right to do so with the number of insured.

As stated above, the number of insured in 2007 was 253.4 million. If 7.2 million fewer Americans are insured today than in 2000, then the number of Americans in possession of health coverage seven years ago must have been 260.6 million, right?

Right?

Of course that’s incorrect; after all, the same major change that caused the number of uninsured to drop by 1.3 million between 2006 and 2007, while the number of insured simultaneously rose by 3.6 million, is valid here, and is affecting these numbers.

That change is, of course, the constant increase in U.S. population.

In 2000, the U.S. population was 276.4 million (another census page shows us 281.4, but the former was the working number of the 2000 Census Bureau study on the uninsured). By 2007, that number had swelled to 298.7 millionan increase of 22.3 million people (again, bear in mind that the Census Bureau was using the previous year’s population and figures to conduct the study, which is why the population is listed at 298 rather than 301 million).

Simple arithmetic tells us that if the number of uninsured has risen by 7.2 million in the seven years between 2000 and 2007, and the population has grown by 22.3 million, then the number of insured Americans has should actually grown by just over 15 million, far outpacing the rise in uninsured.

And look at that! It has, based on the Census Bureau’s own figures of 237.7 million insured Americans in 2000 and 253.4 million in 2007 (an increase of 15.7 million)!

Of course, the mere fact that Mr. Obama is repeating the “7.2 million more uninsured” figure shows that he is getting his statistics from the editorial page of The New York Times, rather than from the Census Bureau. The 2007 report found 45.7 million Americans without health coverage; the 2000 version of that study found 38.7 million lacking insurance. Now, in my mother’s fifth grade class, 45.7 minus 38.7 equals 7 — meaning the increase in raw numbers of uninsured Americans over the past seven years should be 7 million even, not 7.2 million.

What’s a couple hundred thousand residents of flyover country to Barack Obama or to the Times, anyway? After all, there’s a meme to be propagated here, and no little 0.2 million number of insured Americans, nor any thoroughly insignificant increase of 15.7 insured Americans is going to stand in the way of that!

I am sure, based on the way the argument has been constructed to this point, that the Bush administration (and George III McCain) are to blame for that extra 200,000 Americans the Times and Obama forgot to count (too many live births in this country to keep up with…), as well as for the 7 million person increase in the uninsured total — but they are certainly not to blame (or, more correctly, to be assigned credit) for the 15.7 million-person increase in insurance-carrying Americans.

COMMENTS

  • Strelnikov

    The Democrats assume basic stupidity among the American population will allow them to make such claims. The same is true about the “tax cut for 95% of Americans” claim, when the details show there will be an increase.

    Orwellian language: an increase is a decrease, and a decrease is an increase. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

    So Democrats think we are stupid: it seems to be the only conclusion.

    Such is the arrogance and contempt they have for the people of their own country: that smug Mussolinian chin which we have seen on Big Brobama at times says it all.

  • oldschoolconservative

    you know, i think we owe it to ourselves to present numbers with some honesty … let’s look at real incomes adjusted for inflation … and by, and large, we’ve fared worse under GWB than Clinton .. further, I don’t think we can with a straight face claim that our party is better for the middle class than the dems … they may be tax happy .. no doubt about that .. BUT .. the data are in for the last 40 years .. and, given the fact that we’ve dominated the Presidency for most of that time .. in the words of Ricky Ricardo .. “we got some splainin’ to do …”

    so, while we may win this election on the values play, we do America a disservice by not “owning” our leadership at the top (a line I thought Obambi might try to make stick) …

    take a look at the graph below. We can spin the recent data as much as we want, but, on the whole, Republican leadership has led to anemic earnings for the middle class …

    [Link replaced ? Neil Stevens]

    we wonder why the economy is souring and people cannot afford their homes anymore? Because free money and free debt have enslaved a bunch of “middle class, patriotic, God loving” WHITE people in middle America ?

    unfortunately, I think middle class America, may need to prepare to ride the turquoise line for quite a while longer …

    its a shame .. and a travesty …

    [Ditto ? NS]

    [I've disabled your account, oldschoolconservative. Go ahead and ask the Directors to let you back on if you want, using the Contact form. But people whose first comment is to link to documents that spread standard Democrat slogants, start with two and three thirds strikes against them]

    • oldschoolconservative

      PS .. where is the real Teddy Roosevelt when you need him …?

      [Funny you compare yourself with the guy who abandoned the Republican party in a fit of outrageous ego, and founded a party on the basis of Progressivism, with the net result of electing a Progressive.

      Yeah, I believe that's your goal, too. ??NS]

  • ronalddaniels

    Are the citizens of America that incapable of addition and reading? Of course not. But let the media get ahold of it, they’ll propagate it all day long till they pass out from exhuastion.

    Such is the world. Such is ignorance.

    • rjd27

      seriously? How do I plant that tree?

      Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2007 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)

      2008 Income Report

      • Real median household income rose 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007
      • Real median income rose for black, and non-Hispanic white households for the first time since 1999
      • Income remained unchanged for Asians and Hispanics

      my take on the home situation is that 97% of America that owns a home, affords it just fine. It’s the 3% that bought stupidly, out of greed, that are in a pickle. Not to mention the flippers who bought and sold at a profit, driving up prices.

      • NightTwister

  • Zaphod86

    Too bad the uninsured rate has risen by more than a percent. The number of uninsured went from 14/100 people to 15.3/100 people (pg. 28). That’s still more people uninsured. Obama’s right.

  • quill67

    Did you know that the census report on earnings does not include benefits such as health care?!!!

    So as companies have started offering more extensive health benefits with higher premiums, these premiums are not included in wages.

    Retirement accounts are not counted in compensation! As more companies and employees expect retirement accounts these employer contributions do not count in the census wages.

    The census wages are pre-tax! So Bush’s tax cut which improved take-home pay are not included in the census wages.

    So wages are much higher today than they appear compared to the year 2000.

    Additionally, notice how they compare exactly the year 2000 to today. This was the peak of the dotcom tech economy. The difference in median wages between the peak of the tech boom and today is less than $300 per year (not counting the increase in benefits employers have been providing). This is pretty amazing when you consider that we witnessed the collapse as Bush came into office of the dot coms, Sept. 11th, and oil prices going through the roof!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/risingwagegapbutno_squeeze.html

    • Jeff_Emanuel

      Only if little things like “accuracy” don’t matter to you

  • streetwise

    Never let them anywhere NEAR the numbers!

    And Obama is both lawyer and pol- a deadly combo.

    • Zaphod86

      It’s simple. In 2007 43.5 mil people (15.3% of the population) were uninsured.

      2000: The population was 276,000,000. The uninsured rate was 14%. 14% of 276,000,000 is 38.64 mil people. Compare 43.5 million to 38.64 million, that is an increase of 7.06 million uninsured. Given some round-off errors, this is close to the 7.2 million figure.

      I guess no one really knows how to do the math.