[Newsbot]

Title: Number of US uninsured children rises for 2nd year, tops 4 million
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2019-10-30 17:55:00

[BeaverFever]

Gee it’s almost like Trump is some kind of incompetent asshole or something.....

Didn’t that idiot promise everyone was going to have insurance that would cover everything and cost them less than Obamacare? And yet everything he touches turns to shit.

[Thanos]

"They deserve to be punished for being poor and they're poor because God hates them!" - Republican Jesus.

[fifeboy]

Thanos Thanos:

"They deserve to be punished for being poor and they're poor because God hates them!" - Republican Jesus.

[stratos]

Funny Obamacare is still in place. It's the parents not getting the kids insured. Far easier to blame Trump though isn't it. Speaking of Obamacare you do know half the people who had to get on Obamacare were already insured but Obamacare erased their insurance and thus forced them to become participants.

[llama66]

How shit works Stateside is utterly confusing to me.

[BartSimpson]

From page 13 of the report:

$1:

In order to better align with the current health landscape, the
age categories of the 2017 (and 2018) ACS health insurance
tables (in American Fact Finder, now Data.Census.Gov)
were updated so that the age group for children includes
individuals age 18 and younger. In 2016 and previous years,
the age group for children included individuals age 17 and
younger.

https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/u ... Report.pdf

The increase is then mostly statistical as the 18yo cohort were not excluded in the current report as they would have been with the previous methodology.

Makes me wonder if the 0-17 year old statistics would have reflected a decrease in uninsured thus someone had to cook the books to make Orange Man look bad.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

From page 13 of the report:

$1:

In order to better align with the current health landscape, the
age categories of the 2017 (and 2018) ACS health insurance
tables (in American Fact Finder, now Data.Census.Gov)
were updated so that the age group for children includes
individuals age 18 and younger. In 2016 and previous years,
the age group for children included individuals age 17 and
younger.

https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/u ... Report.pdf

The increase is then mostly statistical as the 18yo cohort were not excluded in the current report as they would have been with the previous methodology.

Makes me wonder if the 0-17 year old statistics would have reflected a decrease in uninsured thus someone had to cook the books to make Orange Man look bad.

Nice try. But you fail. Try some common sense.

What the above means is that in this report they compared the number of uninsured children age 18 and younger this year with the number of uninsured children 18 and younger is past years. So its an apple to apple comparison using age 18 for all years. You ca see this in the appendix where they actually show the numbers of “under 19” for each year.

In prior years when they did this study they used age 17 for all years examined.

It does NOT mean they’re simply taking the count of 18yr olds this year and comparing it to the count of 17 year olds taken last year.

Get it?

Trump and Republicans have been a total disaster for US health care, which has already been a disaster for decades.

[BartSimpson]

I have a policy of not defending shit you make up and wish I'd said.

The kids who would have exited the statistics when they became legal adults were carried into the next year and that's why the raw number increased.

This bullshit you just shit out of your fantasies is not at all what I posted nor is it reflective of the disclosure in the report. Nice try but you failed.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I have a policy of not defending shit you make up and wish I'd said.

The kids who would have exited the statistics when they became legal adults were carried into the next year and that's why the raw number increased.

This bullshit you just shit out of your fantasies is not at all what I posted nor is it reflective of the disclosure in the report. Nice try but you failed.

No. You still don’t understand. Nobody was “carried over” into another year.

They counted up the number of uninsured people “under 19” for any given year.

What don’t you understand? Besides everything I mean.

[BartSimpson]

Jesus, Beaver. The fucking report says quite clearly that the tables were changed to carry over a cohort of adults ages 18 to 19 who otherwise would have been removed from the list under the previous methodology.

That's how you get an increase in the number of "children" and that's by redefining adults as children.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jesus, Beaver. The fucking report says quite clearly that the tables were changed to carry over a cohort of adults ages 18 to 19 who otherwise would have been removed from the list under the previous methodology.

That's how you get an increase in the number of "children" and that's by redefining adults as children.

No it doesn’t say that at all and I already fucking explained to you what it said 2 posts ago. Go back and re-read it as many times as you need to finally get a damn clue.

See pages 15-18 it’s all right there for fucks sakes.

[BartSimpson]

Beaver, the 2016 report did not have any 18-19 year olds.

The 2017 report does.

Yet the 'increase' is being calculated from the larger sample in the 2017 report.

Let's try it this way:

$1:

This is the number of red cars in Edmonton in 2016: 7,267

For 2017 I will redefine Edmonton to include Spruce Grove.

Now the total number of red cars in Edmonton is 8,187 and that's an increase!!!

Is that really an increase or did I simply increase the sample?

Because that's what happened here.

[BeaverFever]

*sigh*

PLEASE LISTEN TO ME

1) Go to the latest report in the link YOU provided
2) See tables on pages 15-18
3) Read: count of Children under age 19 in each year
4) understand that when they wrote this year’s report, they counted all the kids under19 in each of the past years, the methods used in the past are NOT RELEVANT because they took a fresh count of the number of kids in every year for THIS report

I really don’t know how many other ways I can explain it. Can someone help me out here?

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

*sigh*

PLEASE LISTEN TO ME

1) Go to the latest report in the link YOU provided
2) See tables on pages 15-18
3) Read: count of Children under age 19 in each year
4) understand that when they wrote this year’s report, they counted all the kids under19 in each of the past years, the methods used in the past are NOT RELEVANT because they took a fresh count of the number of kids in every year for THIS report

I really don’t know how many other ways I can explain it. Can someone help me out here?

They did not collect data on 18-19 year old adults prior to 2017. Look at the index and there's a disclaimer that says so.

They added that cohort to the 2017 report when in the prior methodology they were removed after they were no longer children.

Now they're cooking the books just like the gun control fanatics do when they call 18-26 year old adults 'children' so they can get people like you all upset with how many 'children' are getting killed by gang shootings.

And now they're using that tactic with health insurance and predictably you're falling for it and defending it simply as a knee jerk partisan reaction.

Blather all you want but the fact is that the 2017 report gathers a broader sample than the 2016 report did and the statistical increase of 425,000 uninsured is easily attributed to the corresponding sample increase.