Joel on Olbermann on Health Care Reform

Last night, at my friend Cesar’s behest, I watched Keith Olbermann’s “Comment” on health care reform.

In fact, in order not to miss the program, I changed the channel to MSNBC several minutes early, where I was treated to a discussion of Archie comics and a “debate” over whether the 16th-century Amerindians were actually clamoring for English colonization. (Both participants in the debate were remarkably shrill, so I can’t say for sure which side either was advocating.)

I should probably confess that I don’t watch TV news. I can’t stand it. Not CNN, not MSNBC, not Fox, not Northwest Cable News, not Jon Stewart, not KOMO4 or KING5 or KONG6 or KIRO7. I would rather watch repeats of “Saved by the Bell” than the “Today” show. I don’t even enjoy “McLaughlin Group” anymore. I’d never actually seen an episode of the Olbermann show before yesterday.

It was apparently a departure from his typical format, and it consisted of an hour-long rant about healthcare that was (I think) Olbermann’s argument for Obama-style HCR. If you are interested in the rant, I’m sure you can track it down online.

I, however, was watching it in order to find fault with it. And fault I found!

1. Olbermann opened with an excruciatingly-detailed account of his father’s recent kidney problems. Eventually he mentioned that his father is 80 years old (and therefore, presumably, covered by Medicare, and therefore mostly irrelevant to the argument over HCR).

This part of the show had two points that I could tell. First, it helped stretch Olbermann’s rant to an entire hour, creating additional commercial breaks that could be sold to AARP and HealthReformNow.org and DeathPanel.net and the hundreds of other people eager to advertise their opinions on HCR. And, second, it helped establish Olbermann’s bonafides. This time, I was supposed to infer, it was personal.

2. He next asserted that the entire debate was motivated by “fear of death.” After all, that’s why we have insurance and go to the doctor. Fear of death. Like, that time I couldn’t stop sneezing and wanted allergy meds? Fear of death. The ingrown toenail that kept recurring? Fear of death. Myopia? Fear of death. Acne? Fear of death. Birth control? Fear of death. EVERYTHING IS FEAR OF DEATH. Apparently. (Admittedly, the time I saw the doctor because I was afraid I was dying, that was fear of death.)

3. After this he launched into the syllogism part of his performance:

i. Government is supposed to provide defense.
ii. Health care is a kind of defense.
iii. Therefore, government ought to provide health care.

4. Statistics. Did you know that 122 people die every day because of lack of health insurance? Really, 122 people. That’s what he said, anyway.

Now, (for instance) car crash statistics (“X people are killed each day in car crashes”) can be compiled by counting the number of people who die in car crashes. However, with the exception of people who are refused lifesaving treatment at emergency rooms on account of their uninsured status (which I estimate is about 0 people a day) you can’t actually identify people who died “because they lacked health insurance.”

Instead, you have to use some sort of regression analysis. And indeed, I searched for the 122 a day number and traced it back to a 2002 study:

They came up with this figure by looking at long-term studies that measured the links between insurance status and death rates. The IOM then used annual statistics on insurance rates and deaths to determine an estimate of extra deaths attributable to the lack of insurance.

Alas, another researcher controlled for more variables and found no effect at all:

In other words, once you compare death rates in an apples-to-apples fashion — comparing insured smokers to uninsured smokers, for instance — the likelihood of dying evens out. This, in turn, would mean that IOM’s estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero.

I haven’t read either paper, so I’m not equipped to judge whose methodology seems more reasonable. However, I am equipped to judge that an unqualified assertion that “122 people die every day on account of having no insurance” is misleading at best.

5. More statistics. The regression analysis relied on above concluded that the uninsured had a 40% higher death rate than the insured. But analysis of an earlier time period had estimated the gap at 25%.

“By extrapolation,” Olbermann concluded, “three years from now the chance will be 43% higher! By 2022 the figure will be 53% higher! If we do not reverse this trend…”

But two debatable regression coefficients do not a trend determine, making this “extrapolation” grossly deceptive.

6. Life insurance. Did you know that some employers take out life insurance policies on their employees? Macabre! What does this have to do with HCR? Nothing!

7. “Insurance companies have bought the government.” This is what he said. Insurance companies have bought the government. If you think about it, this should make you suspicious about the details of the HCR (which is being crafted by the government, which has been bought by the wicked insurance companies). Unfortunately, Olbermann did not think about it. (Or at least, he didn’t mention it.)

8. If there was some sort of natural disaster, he continued, the government would spend a lot of money very quickly. (And waste a ton of it, he did not point out.) But isn’t healthcare also a national disaster? QED.

9. “I want my goverment to spend taxpayer money,” he finally asserted. I think this was really the main thrust of his argument, and while I can see why some people might find it compelling, I really didn’t.

10. Most bizarrely, I’m pretty sure that he never mentioned any of the specifics of Obama-style HCR (although he did suggest that we rename it “Medicare for Everybody”).

I certainly learned a lot about Keith Olbermann’s opinions on HCR. However, I learned almost nothing about the HCR proposals actually being considered.

I certainly got the message that I should support Obama’s HCR plan. However, I wasn’t given any idea what Obama’s HCR plan would do.

In the end, this was probably the most irresponsible aspect of the program. Olbermann badgered his audience into supporting a bill that probably even he doesn’t know the details of.

At last it was over, and I changed the channel to “Top Chef.” (Go Kevin!)