[...] The New York Post recently reported on a very troubling survey from the New York State Medical Society, [1] which found that 44 percent of New York doctors are not participating in Obamacare. Worse yet, [2]three-fourths of those who are participating are being forced to because of existing insurance contracts. [...]
Docs resisting ObamaCare | New York Post
Does the New York Health Exchange have more credibility than the Obama administration ?:liar
Where is the link to the Forbes article?
That's a good question....
What.
Well, in a thread titled "Forbes Fabricates Figures", I expected to see what figures they fabricated, and what their claims were, neither of which are included in the op. :lol:
Does the New York Health Exchange have more credibility than the Obama administration ?
1. I don't see the fabrication. Based on the 409 doctors surveyed that is the results. Sounds like it was done similar to any other pollIn a DP discussion of new Obamacare fees which has gone wildly off topic (http://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca/181904-new-obamacare-fees-coming-2014-w-41-a.html), I was hit with two links in one post referring to the same NY Post article on doctors who are not signing up to participate in exchange health insurance policies. The article was based upon a NY state poll. Forbes made the following claim:
1. This part, in bold, is a falsehood. The truth is that 44% of the doctors who responded to the poll (survey) are not participating in Obamacare (not accepting patients with exchange health insurance) (keep in mind this poll is not dated but the file was last modified Oct. 30th). They only received 409 answers to that question, and I presume there are more than 409 doctors in New York. Now while you can use a poll to predicted total outcomes, this poll has no features of a professional poll, such as confidence interval and margin of error, nor was it seemingly conducted by a qualified, professional polling/survey company.
2. This part, also in bold, is a gross misrepresentation of the facts presented by the poll results in another falsehood. This claim consists of two parts:
1. The first poll question asked doctors how many exchange insurance companies they were doing business with. 44% said none, as noted above. 33.5% said they were not sure. In order to get the "three-fourths" that Forbes claimed, they had to assume that these 33.5% were also not accepting any exchange insurance policies. Hopefully everyone can agree that "not sure" is probably 1 or more, not "none".
2. The next question asked how many doctors freely chose to accept exchange patients and how many were forced to accept exchange patients because an insurance company they were already doing business with required them to (or lose all that company's business). The compared this latter number to 22.6% who gave a firm number in response to the first question above, when they should have compared it to that 22.6% plus the 33.5% that were "not sure" how many exchange policies/networks/companies they were doing business with. The result is they greatly inflated their claim (it would be less than half the "three fourths" that they claim).
The actual poll is here: http://www.mssny.org/surveys/HealthExchange_10282013.pdf
Clearly, whomever wrote the Forbes article is rather stupid or is trying to manipulate their readership by giving them false information. In any case, it is yet another example that you cannot take 'reporting' at face value, especially if there is a history or expectation of deceit; you have to dig down to the original source and see if the reporting is truthful.
Does the New York Health Exchange have more credibility than the Obama administration ?
Where is the link to the Forbes article?
[...] The New York Post recently reported on a very troubling survey from the New York State Medical Society, [1] which found that 44 percent of New York doctors are not participating in Obamacare. Worse yet, [2]three-fourths of those who are participating are being forced to because of existing insurance contracts. [...]
When Will The Government Start Forcing Doctors To See Obamacare Patients? - Forbes
Both have more credibility than the New York post.
How can you call this a credible news source when they post stories like this?
Jihad monkey! | New York Post
No, it does not include the 33.5%, and it should. And those 33.5% did not refuse to answer, but they did not know how many policies/insurers they were participating with.[...] 3. Where it can be misleading is here. is the 75% talking just about the 22% or is it including the 33% who don't know/refused to answer
One of those sites is the Pakistan Defense Forum, which has pictures of gun-toting monkeys, and makes the wild claim that a monkey-soldier program was first launched by the CIA in Vietnam.
“Today, the Taliban forces have given the American troops some of their own medicine,” The People’s Daily said.
44% of the doctors who responded to the poll
wrong link
Here. I put the wrong link in the OP. Doh!
well if they are unsure, it can't accurately include them. so maybe take those numbers out completely and base it off the two thirds it accurately can determine. which would be roughly what? 305-306. Now it could have dug deeper into the 33.5% to get a more accurate numberNo, it does not include the 33.5%, and it should. And those 33.5% did not refuse to answer, but they did not know how many policies/insurers they were participating with.
That's so funny.
And completely made up. Anyone who takes this story seriously has got somthing wrong because this story showed plenty of signs of being false.
Mmm, no. If they had said "a survey of 409 doctors show that 44% do not participate in Obamacare", that would be true.1. I don't see the fabrication. Based on the 409 doctors surveyed that is the results. Sounds like it was done similar to any other poll [...]
It read like the Onion. The pic looks photoshopped.
44 percent of New York doctors are not participating in Obamacare
An no, the poll was clearly not a professional one, as noted above, but that's not the issue.
But they are accurately excluding them, by assuming that since that group said they were unsure of the number they meant none or zero. They can't do what they did -- it is unethical math, and it is almost certainly incorrect by a factor of at least two. Given the uncertainty of the 33.5% group, they should not have made the "three fourths" calculation at all.well if they are unsure, it can't accurately include them. [...]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?