The Blog

Bad Faith Meets Bad Science

3:16 PM, Apr 22, 2014 • By ALEX VUCKOVIC
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

The credulity of the press and political class in breathlessly reporting this bogus conclusion as scientific fact should not surprise anyone in an era when “climate change” does not require the climate to, uh, change. However, the “Fool me once” rule ought to apply to Dr. Himmelstein. In his newest paper, he claims to rely for his 17,000 dead bodies on Oregon Medicaid data ,which, in prospective randomized fashion, demonstrated pretty conclusively that there was no difference in health outcomes between the uninsured and the Medicaid-covered, aside from a small difference in the incidence of depression. His trick this time is to also rely on “two widely-cited estimates of the impact of coverage expansion on mortality.” Estimates are of course not data, especially among the like-minded advocates of universal health coverage who comprise the academic “public health community.” I will spare the reader the tedium of Himmelstein’s subsequent methodology; suffice it to say that it makes his earlier paper look almost respectable by contrast.

And now, lefty blogs and the Democratic party reelection machine have another number validated by the Harvard brand to bash conservatives with. Before we leave that august institution, perhaps we should pay heed to the following quote:

“The majority of our representatives...quietly understand...this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.”

The year was 2009. The writer was that well-known right-wing demagogue Dean Jeffrey Flier of Harvard Medical School.

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 19 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers