On July 19 I commented on a research report released by the Democrat's Commonwealth Fund think tank concering Medicare vs. non-senior employer sponsored insurance. I had looked quickly at the report and as I typically do began with the Methodology section and then read a few of the tables. Since that's what I do as a living, I did not read CommonWealth Fund's analysis but did the analysis myself.
I found that CommonWealth Fund was actually proving the obvious:
- Seniors like private Medicare insurance such as provided by their former employers or private Medigap companies more than
- Non-seniors like the increasingly more restrictive insurance provided by their current employers.
I saw some obvious methodological flaws however, particularly in how CommonWealth Fund was comparing those on Medicare Part C Advantage vs. those with other types of private Medicare supplemental insurance.
Then...
the mainstream press started picking up the research and said the research proved something entirely different... proved just the opposite in fact. The mainstream press found the research said seniors loved traditional Medicare ONLY and that this was reason to vote against anyone favoring Wyden/Ryan Medicare reform and any other proposal that involved privatizing the (ironically) already almost completely privatized Medicare system.
How could I have reached the entirely opposite conclusion as the press? Well I went back and checked the Methodology in more detail and I now conclude the Commonwealth Fund is the biggest Medicare distortion I have ever seen. Below is a detailed analysis of the Methodology. Shame on you Commonwealth Fund for such intellectual dishonesty.
-- Dennis Byron
