SUNDAY, MAY 5, 2013
Has never been piled quite so high: Ironical, isn’t it?
When we come to the Hudson Valley, we come here to visit an older friend who is a patient in a Medicaid-funded long-term care facility. He suffers from the effects of Parkinson’s.
We’re always impressed by what we see in the facility where he now lives, especially when we recall our own father’s last years in the late 1950s.
Ironic, then, that on this weekend, the New York Times hits an apparent now low with this op-ed column by the apparently uninformed Ross Douthat. The column stands out today among other examples of the types of nonsense which characterize New York Times high pseudo-culture.
Douthat attempts to report on a new study of the effectiveness of Medicaid coverage. His piece seems to be so uninformed that it almost defines a whole new standard for New York Times cluelessness.
But because we’re headed off to a Medicaid-funded facility, we can’t really cover the Douthat column today. Therein lies the day’s irony!
For a background primer, we will recommend this post from last week by Kevin Drum. As we do, we’ll remind you of a very basic fact—“statistical significance” is not the same thing as sociological significance.
If some study's results aren't “statistically significant,” that doesn't mean that the study shows no results at all. It doesn't tell you what kinds of results a larger study would have shown.
Our journalists have a great deal of trouble with the very basic concept of “statistical significance.” Again, we'll recommend the Drum post as a starting point.
(For an earlier post, where even Drum jumped the gun, just click here. Check his postscript and his update.)
We’ll also marvel at Douthat’s cluelessness regarding the financial aspects of the study he cites. Correct us if we’re wrong: But the study Douthat characterizes doesn’t compare people who got health care through Medicaid with people who got no health care at all. It compares people who got health care through Medicaid with people who got health care without such financial assistance.
That said, because we ourselves are headed off to a Medicaid-funded facility, we can’t really cover the Douthat piece today! Therein lies the day’s irony.
Two other pieces in today’s Times reek of instant classic New York Times pseudo-culture. (Just click here. After that, for the ultimate insult to your intelligence, timorously click this.) Neither piece “matters” in the way Douthat’s groaner does. But truly, our intellectual pseudo-elites are a comically fallen lot.
Kierkegaard and relativity and statistical significance oh my! Full disclosure as we head out the door:
We haven't even looked to see what the public editor says.
I've got no clue what TDH's beef is about the other 2 NYT columns or how they insulted his intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAC/MA
Bob doesn't like the media's coverage of physics and philosophical matters. He thinks they lack clarity and don't make any sense.
DeleteI think he's concern that the data from this study is being wrongly interpreted to suggest that Medicaid recipients show no more physical benefits than people without any health insurance.
DeleteThe two newspaper pieces were not really supposed to explain relativistic physics or Kierkegaard's philosophy - they are really just book notices. If you are interested in the subjects and capable of understanding them, you can read the books. This is really what book reviews are for.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people with interests beyond Bob's read the Times, not just for political news.
ReplyDeleteThe columnists are another thing - except for Krugman they frequently make pronouncements about things in which they have no expertise.
Correct us if we’re wrong: But the study Douthat characterizes doesn’t compare people who got health care through Medicaid with people who got no health care at all. It compares people who got health care through Medicaid with people who got health care without such financial assistance.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong, Bob. But, your error is caused by Douthit's unclear explanation. Megan McArdle gives a much, much better explanation
The Oregon study compared people who won a lottery for Medicaid care vs. people who were equally eligible, but who lost that lottery. So, there was no difference between the two groups.
It is you who are wrong. Those who lost the lottery would still have received health care - just not government assistance.
DeleteDavid, I'm not sure they can claim that the Medicaid lottery losers received no health care benefits during the study. People who are uninsured at times, tend to go in and out of that state, by holding down various jobs, etc.
DeleteWhat's interesting to me is that the Medicaid receivers were being treated for hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol, via medication, but were showing no improvement (if I'm reading the study right).
That suggests they weren't adhering to their medication schedule, and that they weren't making good diet and exercise choices, etc.
I'm not so sure that anyone is ignorant about these matters any more, info is all over the place, but income level can most certainly affect the choices available to you.
Kevin Drum tries again:
Deletehttp://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/what-we-know-oregon-medicaid-study
Interesting. Thanks.
DeleteDinC:
Delete"Megan McArdle gives a much, much better explanation [linked]."
The link takes the reader to a blank Google search page.
Just as well.