Selective statistics distort truth

Selective statistics distort truth

Ed Fulmer, president of the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, writes in a Nov. 30 column supporting repeal of the health care law: “In a new Gallup poll ... opponents of the (health care) law outnumber supporters more than 2 to 1: 42 percent said it went too far, while 20 percent said it was just right.”

Mr. Fulmer conveniently omits the 29 percent in the same poll that thought the law “does not go far enough.” Presumably, they could be considered “supporters” or an least not opponents. You’ve got 49 percent who say the law is “about right” or “does not go far enough” vs. 42 percent who say the law “goes too far” — a far cry from Mr. Fulmer’s lie that “opponents outnumber supporters by more than 2 to 1.”

Nor does Fulmer cite the same poll’s findings that break down the 42 percent opposed into 7 percent favoring “keeping the law in place but scaling it back considerably,” 25 percent who favor repeal and replacing with a new health care bill, and 10 percent favoring repeal without a new bill. I guess that part of the poll doesn’t support his position in favor of repeal.

I could not find tabulated results of the Rasmussen poll Fulmer cites that “53 percent of likely voters favor repeal.” A McClatchy-Marist Poll of registered voters taken Nov. 15-18 seems to disagree. When asked what Congress should do about the 2010 Health Care Law, the results were: 16 percent “Let it stand,” 35 percent “Change it so it does more”, 11 percent “Change it so it does less,” and 33 percent “Repeal it completely,” the remainder were “Unsure.” Apparently whether a majority favor repeal depends on who you ask and how you ask.

Mr. Feulner goes on to cite Heritage Foundation’s Nina Owcharenko as saying, “that market-based health care reform can’t be built on the foundation of the legislation that Congress passed” finding it “...incompatible with real health care reform based on personal choice and free markets.” Hmm, I’d like to know how an individual person like myself going up against a multi-billion dollar corporation like Anthem’s parent Wellpoint could possibly be considered a “free market”.

In Heritage’s “free market” what will my personal choices be? Going without health care insurance and maybe even needed health care services while risking my financial security vs. paying whatever the health insurers choose to charge and using the doctors and hospitals that they designate, while subsidizing those among us who use the emergency room as their primary care doctor? Being denied coverage or paying exorbitant rates because I had a pre-existing condition, even though there is overwhelming evidence that the condition has been permanently remedied? Watching premiums increase year after year at rates far above general inflation? No thanks.

Richard Ostheimer, Youngstown