Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inOn dishonest analyses
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
On dishonest analyses
by charvaka Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:30 pm
The consulting firm McKinsey has backtracked from its report that predicted that the Affordable Care Act would result in employers not offering healthcare coverage to employees. In the face of questions from the US Congress, McKinsey says:
The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act... Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO’s, is comparing apples to oranges. While the McKinsey Quarterly article about the survey cited CBO estimates, any comparison is not apt.
However, the title of their report was:
How US health care reform will affect employee benefits
The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/27190
The most hilarious line of the McKinsey explanation? This one: We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not.
I can picture somebody snickering as they wrote that line.
The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of the Affordable Care Act... Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO’s, is comparing apples to oranges. While the McKinsey Quarterly article about the survey cited CBO estimates, any comparison is not apt.
However, the title of their report was:
How US health care reform will affect employee benefits
The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/27190
The most hilarious line of the McKinsey explanation? This one: We understand how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research was a prediction, but it is not.
I can picture somebody snickering as they wrote that line.
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Re: On dishonest analyses
by Impedimenta Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:37 pm
psstt...admin man, this has nothing to do with your post but a general question about the forum's logistics. you and I both posted a topic and got like 5 "views" within a span of a few minutes.
i clicked on your post once. unless you are viewing the posts from your comp and device TWICE, how is this number possible? we have lurkers here who just click on a topic without replies?
merely curious and very vetti for the next 20 mins.
i clicked on your post once. unless you are viewing the posts from your comp and device TWICE, how is this number possible? we have lurkers here who just click on a topic without replies?
merely curious and very vetti for the next 20 mins.
Impedimenta- Posts : 2791
Join date : 2011-04-29
Re: On dishonest analyses
by charvaka Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:37 pm
Yes. Otherwise the forum wouldn't consistently show an average of over 200 "unique visitors" a day, with under 50 really active users (with 10 posts or more.)Impedimenta wrote:we have lurkers here who just click on a topic without replies?
charvaka- Posts : 4347
Join date : 2011-04-28
Location : Berkeley, CA
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum