As of Tuesday, December 3, 2013
The surprise is that so many people are surprised.
Over the last several weeks there has been loads of coverage of the Obamacare debacle. For the first few days, despite evidence to the contrary, the submissive media reported the problems were due to overwhelming demand. Eventually even reporters most loyal to the Obama Administration remembered what they did for a living and the scale of the failure was publicized.
But the website that doesn’t function is the least of it. The news will get worse when the website is fixed. That’s when people will learn exactly how much more medical insurance will cost after the government made it better.
But again, the surprise is that so many people are surprised.
People should not be shocked that the Obama Administration lied about its scheme for health care. A decent argument can be made the entire Obamacare charade is built upon deceit and half-truths.
For years liberal politicians have claimed that the healthcare system in the United States was inferior and had to be replaced. Those believers cited all sorts of statistics to prove their point.
The infant mortality rate in the U.S. compared to European countries is always a popular item on which they build that argument. The story goes that U.S. healthcare must be really, really bad since so many more babies die here than other countries.
None of which passes the sniff test.
But reporters are increasingly not so good at sniff tests. Because of that, the spoof about burgeoning baby deaths in the U.S. is commonly and frequently repeated by the media.
We all know that people come to this country for medical care. It might happen that a baby has been transported from the U.S. to Canada for critical care. Maybe. Perhaps. Somewhere, sometime. But the opposite happens with some frequency. One would think, knowing how often babies are flown to the U.S. for medical care that reporters would become suspicious about the oft-repeated item about infant mortality.
The oft-cited statistic by starry-eyed reporter is not based on the care provided in pediatric wards – but on how what happens in pediatric wards is tabulated.
As it turns out, other countries do not track infant mortality the same way the U.S. does. In Norway (the leader in this category) any baby that weighs less than 1.1 lbs. is not a baby. If it dies, as might be common in such a circumstance, it is not included in infant mortality statistics.
In most countries if a baby dies less than two days after birth it is not included in the statistic. The U.S. is the exception. In both cases, those simple differences in record keeping skew statistics terribly.
Perhaps the greatest canard touted by the socialized medicine crowd is life expectancy. As the argument goes, the U.S. spends more money on healthcare than other countries but we die younger. The conclusion being, of course, that ‘something must be done.’
We have learned the life-expectancy statistic is as phony as the infant mortality fabrication.
When accidental deaths (car accidents, violent crime), which have nothing to do with healthcare, are removed from the calculation the U.S. vaults from 19th in life expectancy to – you guessed it – tops in the world at 76.9 years.
For years the media has been filled with reports of how horrible the healthcare system in the United States really is. All of that reporting served as the catalyst for Democrats to dismantle it. Many favored Obamacare because they believed the hype and hoped they could get something for nothing. Whether it is healthcare, lottery tickets or carburetors that make 180 miles per gallon possible, these folks apparently missed the memo on free lunches.
The fact is the United States is served by the finest healthcare system in the world. Are there problems? Yes, but a complete restructuring of the system is not the answer. After just seven weeks of Obamacare, we are learning the cost of government healthcare – and that has come at quite a surprise.
By Dan Hammes,