So the Census Bureau is changing the method they use to estimate how many people are uninsured. This is because "...demographers and statisticians of all persuasions have argued for years that the old version over reports the number of uninsured relative to other surveys..."

So now the "45 million uninsured..." used to justify Obamacare, will be replaced by a more accurate methodology when the next data are released this fall (coincidentally, just before the mid-term elections). Since the Census Bureau has reported that these new numbers will not only be more accurate, but lower, then we can expect the cretins of the left to crow about the differences between current and previous counts as proof Obamacare is working; regardless that the CB says the comparisons will be meaningless. We'll just have to wait to see how it's spun but my guess is in favor of Obamacare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/pol....html?_r=0

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...reno64-wsj

What a surprise. Coming from the administration of "lets just make up whatever we want". I really do think the federal government has gotten so big that no one really has much of a clue what's going on.

Babylon is confusion.

Our government has completely embraced pragmatic means,
therefor truth has been relegated to an insignificant annoyance.

They're changing it now so that they have a better reading of insured vs. uninsured from 2013 to 2014...when the ACA takes full effect. That will provide more accurate numbers going forward.

Quote:…What’s being missed here is that the Obama administration will use the new survey questions to collect data for 2013, the year prior to Obamacare’s health insurance expansion, a senior administration official says.

The Census Bureau reports the health insurance rate with a one-year delay; in September 2013, for example, the agency reported the percent of Americans without coverage in 2012. It will most likely report the uninsured rate for 2013 sometime this coming fall.

In other words: The survey will make it difficult to compare the uninsured rate for 2012, the last year for the old questions, and 2013, the first year for the new questions. But making the change now means that 2013 and 2014 – the year before and after Obamacare’s big programs started – are using the same question set.

Don't freak out about the changes to the Census yet

Guys, if every time Obama takes a **** it becomes a conspiracy theory to you, YOU HAVE ISSUES!

(04-16-2014 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  They're changing it now so that they have a better reading of insured vs. uninsured from 2013 to 2014...when the ACA takes full effect. That will provide more accurate numbers going forward.

Quote:…What’s being missed here is that the Obama administration will use the new survey questions to collect data for 2013, the year prior to Obamacare’s health insurance expansion, a senior administration official says.

The Census Bureau reports the health insurance rate with a one-year delay; in September 2013, for example, the agency reported the percent of Americans without coverage in 2012. It will most likely report the uninsured rate for 2013 sometime this coming fall.

In other words: The survey will make it difficult to compare the uninsured rate for 2012, the last year for the old questions, and 2013, the first year for the new questions. But making the change now means that 2013 and 2014 – the year before and after Obamacare’s big programs started – are using the same question set.

Don't freak out about the changes to the Census yet

Guys, if every time Obama takes a **** it becomes a conspiracy theory to you, YOU HAVE ISSUES!

I thought for sure you would have blamed an internet video.

(04-16-2014 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  They're changing it now so that they have a better reading of insured vs. uninsured from 2013 to 2014...when the ACA takes full effect. That will provide more accurate numbers going forward.

Guys, if every time Obama takes a **** it becomes a conspiracy theory to you, YOU HAVE ISSUES!

Tom, I honestly think the federal government has grown too large for any head of state to really know what's going on. - and that is extremely worrisome. Now, I do believe that with Obama's lack of executive experience this "not really knowing what's going on" is worse than others would be.

I just think his lack of ever being in a position to hone and learn organizational skills has shown up time and time again. The totally botched ACA website rollout is an example that comes to mind. You would think that as public and important as that was - he would have had a much better pulse on just how prepared (or not) that whole mess was. It very publicly gave the impression that he and his minions didn't have a clue of how unprepared the rollout was.

It gives one the feeling that, "If they can't get this very public and signature achievement right, how much worse bumbling is going on that just isn't seen."

As much as you carry your hero's water, I just don't know how you can defend that.

(04-16-2014 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  They're changing it now so that they have a better reading of insured vs. uninsured from 2013 to 2014...when the ACA takes full effect. That will provide more accurate numbers going forward.

Quote:…What’s being missed here is that the Obama administration will use the new survey questions to collect data for 2013, the year prior to Obamacare’s health insurance expansion, a senior administration official says.

The Census Bureau reports the health insurance rate with a one-year delay; in September 2013, for example, the agency reported the percent of Americans without coverage in 2012. It will most likely report the uninsured rate for 2013 sometime this coming fall.

In other words: The survey will make it difficult to compare the uninsured rate for 2012, the last year for the old questions, and 2013, the first year for the new questions. But making the change now means that 2013 and 2014 – the year before and after Obamacare’s big programs started – are using the same question set.

Don't freak out about the changes to the Census yet

Guys, if every time Obama takes a **** it becomes a conspiracy theory to you, YOU HAVE ISSUES!

Never said it was a conspiracy. What I said was that I expect the Dems to try to spin this to their advantage before the elections. Pretty simple.

If you'd take the time to try to understand the context of these posts, you'd get it. Unfortunately, you react reflexively and immediately turn to a full blown defensive position by attacking the messenger; making you nothing more than a Saul Alinsky wannabe. As Alinsky said: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Describes your methods quite well.

Nice try question...but when your thread title contains 'cooking the books' you're pretty much implying a conspiracy. That phrase means changing the numbers to say something you want...to further your agenda. Sorry.

(04-16-2014 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nice try question...but when your thread title contains 'cooking the books' you're pretty much implying a conspiracy. That phrase means changing the numbers to say something you want...to further your agenda. Sorry.

Wrong again. The title of the linked article was "Cooking the Obamacare Stats." I simply recast it to catch the flavor of this board.

Besides "implying" is subjective and can be interpreted in a manner that fits your prejudice. Nothing you post changes the fact that you are a knee jerk apologist for the Dems.

The Census has always been hands off to politics. Is anyone surprised that this Regime will use it now for political points? Nothing is beyond this corrupt administration.

(04-16-2014 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Guys, if every time Obama takes a **** it becomes a conspiracy theory to you, YOU HAVE ISSUES!

Every time the leader of the world's biggest democracy lies about one of the most expensive social programs in world history, well, yes, for those that care more about good governance than partisanship, yes, it is an issue. The federal government has re-done the stats in an election year, but it's a perfectly acceptable revision to you?

And, you wish to compare the credibility of a weeks-old site born out of the Washington Post's "wonkblog" author to the Wall Street Journal? Please.

Besides, it's not a conspiracy if one branch of the government simply changes the rules to serve its own interests. In ideal circumstances, one might think that accountability - or lack thereof - may be more relevant to the discussion.

(04-16-2014 11:41 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  The Census has always been hands off to politics. Is anyone surprised that this Regime will use it now for political points? Nothing is beyond this corrupt administration.

You're a complete and utter moron. Time for some new tinfoil. Your current hat sucks...big time!

Quote:Census watchers are adamant that the change is not being made for political reasons, but to improve the data. "These changes are scientifically driven, but sometimes poorly timed," said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former overseer of the Census for Congress and co-director of the Census Project.

Indeed, this particular change has been in the works for years, and was the subject of detailed, peer-reviewed studies. The most recent study from 2013 can be found here. Another study was conducted in 2010, and other studies and discussions go back as far as the early years of the George W. Bush administration.

In order for data to stay relevant, Lowenthal explained, surveys need to be modified and updated. "There has to be changes in questions, and frankly there may never be a good time," she said.

She also noted that the specific survey that is being altered is a supplement to the Current Population Survey, which produces, among other things, the jobless numbers. That survey is just one of several that collect health insurance data. It's also probably the least accurate.

If Republicans are worried that the books could be cooked in the Current Population Survey, and would like to rely on a different set of data entirely, they can fall back on the American Community Survey, which is far more detailed, and will continue to ask the same health insurance questions for several more years.

But if they really want to be able to look at the ACS data, the GOP will have to agree to stop trying to prevent the survey from being conducted.

Quote:The recent changes to the Current Population Survey’s questions related to health insurance coverage is the culmination of 14 years of research and two national tests in 2010 and 2013 clearly showing the revised questions provide more precise measures of health insurance through improved respondent recall.
This change was announced in September 2013 and implemented because the evidence showed that reengineering the questions provides demonstrably more accurate results. The Census Bureau only implements changes in survey methodology based on research, testing, and evidence presented for peer review.
The revised questions were implemented in the Current Population Survey beginning in February 2014 in time for data collection covering calendar year 2013, and thus will provide a more accurate baseline for assessments of changes in insurance coverage, including that of the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15...54752.html

You guys and the GOP are just ******* nuts!

Tom, you're still missing the basic point of this post. Here let me try to make it clear so that even you should be able to understand.

The old census numbers overestimated the number of uninsured.

The new numbers will more accurately depict the number of uninsured and will likely show a lower number.

I predict that the Dems running for reelection will spin these two disparate facts to say that Obamacare lowered the number of uninsured.

Now is that hard to understand?

(04-16-2014 01:42 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Tom, you're still missing the basic point of this post. Here let me try to make it clear so that even you should be able to understand.
The old census numbers overestimated the number of uninsured.
The new numbers will more accurately depict the number of uninsured and will likely show a lower number.
I predict that the Dems running for reelection will spin these two disparate facts to say that Obamacare lowered the number of uninsured.
Now is that hard to understand?

For RedTom, yes.

RedTom used to be a good poster. Hard left lean, but at least had some legitimate support for his positions. Now he's just carrying water for Obama, like everybody else on the left seems to be doing.

(04-16-2014 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 01:42 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Tom, you're still missing the basic point of this post. Here let me try to make it clear so that even you should be able to understand.
The old census numbers overestimated the number of uninsured.
The new numbers will more accurately depict the number of uninsured and will likely show a lower number.
I predict that the Dems running for reelection will spin these two disparate facts to say that Obamacare lowered the number of uninsured.
Now is that hard to understand?

For RedTom, yes.

RedTom used to be a good poster. Hard left lean, but at least had some legitimate support for his positions. Now he's just carrying water for Obama, like everybody else on the left seems to be doing.

I think that early on he was riding the wave of Obama and that euphoric feeling took the edge off. Now that what many had been saying all along is coming to fruition, ex. - Obamacare CAN"T lead to lower costs, etc. Tom, has decided to doubledown on the lies and misrepresentations. What else is there? There aren't any successes.

(04-16-2014 01:42 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Tom, you're still missing the basic point of this post. Here let me try to make it clear so that even you should be able to understand.

The old census numbers overestimated the number of uninsured.

The new numbers will more accurately depict the number of uninsured and will likely show a lower number.

I predict that the Dems running for reelection will spin these two disparate facts to say that Obamacare lowered the number of uninsured.

Now is that hard to understand?

No way! A running politician will manipulate data to suit their agenda? That can't be...can it? Yet another new development that only started happening among democrats and under Obama.

But seriously...no...your point with the original post...and the point of the Republicans purposely misrepresenting a current change that had been planned for YEARS...was to make this look like an event with the sole purpose of making the ACA look better than it is.

You ain't fooling me no matter how many times you tell your tale.

(04-16-2014 01:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 01:42 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Tom, you're still missing the basic point of this post. Here let me try to make it clear so that even you should be able to understand.
The old census numbers overestimated the number of uninsured.
The new numbers will more accurately depict the number of uninsured and will likely show a lower number.
I predict that the Dems running for reelection will spin these two disparate facts to say that Obamacare lowered the number of uninsured.
Now is that hard to understand?

For RedTom, yes.

RedTom used to be a good poster. Hard left lean, but at least had some legitimate support for his positions. Now he's just carrying water for Obama, like everybody else on the left seems to be doing.

Oaf#'s, I'm surprised you aren't regaling us with your insights for when you did work for the census bureau.

I'll offer Tom a conciliatory mea culpa. It does look like this census manipulation could indeed be referred to as a conspiracy. Back when Obama was trying to find Republican dupes to put a bi-partisan facade on his uber-partisan administration, it looks like the administration was called out for politicising the Census Bureau.

Best of the Web Today: Judd Gregg Was Right - WSJ.com

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...reno64-wsj Wrote:A statement from Robert Gibbs, then White House press secretary, blamed the ex-nominee: "Senator (ed: Judd) Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President's agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama's key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways."

But Gregg had a different take on the disagreement, as the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe reported:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal..._said.html Wrote:Sen. Judd Gregg said today [Feb. 12] that his decision to withdraw from consideration for commerce secretary was due in part to his concern with the Obama administration's decision to have the next Census director report to senior White House staffers as well as the commerce secretary.

Well as the onion peels slowly away, we now find out that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong and there was a conspiracy. Seems that when the Census Bureau changes a methodology for counting, they have run both the old and new methods for a few years in order to correlate the data sets. But not this time.

Quote WSJ: "If the timing of the CPS changes and the failure to preserve the continuity of the old data weren't political, then they reflect gross incompetence at the Census, one of the very few bureaucracies that usually avoids subtracting from human knowledge."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...reno64-wsj