Category Archives: Random Blogging

About Those Polls….

A recent polling “primer” intended for journalists has some useful cautions for all of us being inundated with reports about the “latest polling results” in this weird campaign season.

We are always (usefully) reminded that even the best polls are but a snapshot of public opinion at the time the poll is fielded, so results depend upon what voters have heard and seen at that particular time. Subsequent campaigning can–and more often than not, does–change those perceptions.

It also should not be news that some polls are more equal than others: good polls are expensive, and a lot of what’s out there is at best unreliable and at worst, garbage. Composition and size of the respondent pool (the sample), design of the questions and a number of other flaws can make some surveys worse than useless.

But in addition to those standard cautions, recent changes in communications and the willingness of the public to answer questions cast further doubt on the accuracy of even the better-designed polls.

It should go without saying that “click on our link and tell us what you think” internet polls are worthless.

The increased use of mobile phones, especially, has challenged polling operations. That’s particularly true because there are significant differences in the populations that use cell phones and those who continue to keep their landlines, posing a huge challenge for the algorithms pollsters use to compensate for inability to reach mobile devices.

Further compounding the problem, the number of people willing to talk to a pollster when they are contacted has steadily declined; some estimates are that a mere 5% of those who answer their phones are willing to answer survey questions. Even if the number in the sample is increased in an effort to compensate, it is highly likely that the people who are willing to talk differ in some relevant ways from those who aren’t.

We saw the consequences of all this recently in the Michigan Democratic primary. The best polling has come a long way since “Dewey Beats Truman”–but most of what earns headlines isn’t the best polling.

The troubling aspect of this is that even garbage polls have the ability to affect people’s perceptions and ultimately, to affect election results.

Comments

And Now, The Rest of the Story…

This will be my final post about my personal odyssey with the fine folks at Anthem. It will be brief, just to update those of you who’ve been so kind with your suggestions and good wishes.

You will be happy to know that Anthem has made medical school unnecessary.

Yep–when they finally returned the multiple calls from the hospital doctors, and those doctors had once again gone through the charts, the X rays, the reports from in-hospital PT, etc., they were told that according to Anthem’s algorithm, I am not a candidate for rehab.

Their algorithm, you see, knows more about my condition and needs than the medical personnel who actually examined and treated me.

As one doctor said, “why did I waste all that time in medical school?”

I’m going home. My younger grandchildren will come over to help my husband with my care, at least for a couple of days, and we’ll figure it all out. (As those of you who know me know, I’m a tough old bird.) But everyone in this situation–as you  can see from the multitude of comments here on the blog and on Facebook–isn’t as fortunate as I am, doesn’t have a support network that can step in. And according to the doctors and caseworker, I am far, far from the only person facing this bureaucratic malpractice. And I will follow up on several of your recommendations for filing complaints, etc., in hopes that I can keep at least some others from going through a similar fiasco.

The United States is the only developed country in the world that has chosen to socialize its medical care through the insurance industry.

I asked one of the doctors if they have these same problems with Medicare. They don’t.

For now, this blog will return to its originally-scheduled programming.

Comments

Inexplicable, Costly and Wrong; An “Extra” Blog

Okay, I defy anyone to explain this to me.

As regular readers know, I’m in the hospital recuperating from a nasty fall. I broke my pelvis and my clavicle. I’ve been here 8 days, although the doctors wanted to send me to acute rehab three days ago. (Acute rehab is apparently more intensive, appropriate for people who have been active and can be expected to respond to longer sessions of physical therapy–and thus leave for home more quickly.)

This morning, I was finally supposed to be transferred. But then, Anthem, my “insurance” company (note the quotes) rejected the doctors’ advice and denied the move. According to the caseworker, since the first of the year, insurers have been denying approximately 50% of requested moves to acute rehab. Without seeing the patients, without consulting with their doctors. The hospital can and does appeal, and about half of those “peer to peer” appeals are granted–we’ll see what happens with mine–but even the appeal process evidently becomes a game; calls are routinely returned after hours, for example, when the insurance company knows the physician won’t be available, prolonging the process.

But here’s what is insane: keeping me in the hospital costs more than sending me to rehab.

Why would a company that should want to keep costs down opt for a placement that (1) is medically inappropriate; and (2) costs more? Why did the approval process suddenly become more arduous at the beginning of the year? What is the larger game being played in which I find myself a pawn? And what therapy will Anthem pay for? Anything? Or is my 83-year-old husband supposed to drag me up the stairs at our home and help me in and out of bed when nature calls?

Tell me again how horrible single-payer systems are…

Comments

Political Choices and Imperfect Information

We’re deep into presidential primary season, and Americans are taking our imperfect knowledge of the candidates to the polls.

Given the sheer amount of ink–digital or real–devoted to American presidential candidates, you’d think voters would have ample, detailed information about those competing for our votes and contributions. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. Verifiable information is “supplemented” with rumor (scurrilous or fawning, depending upon the source and its motivation), and what we do read or hear is filtered through a partisan lens.

Unless we actually know a candidate–or know someone who does–we have only imperfect impressions on which to make judgments about character and intellect. That’s one reason why, in a more perfect world, voters would pay more attention to a candidate’s positions and less to the hype. Marco Rubio’s desire to outlaw all abortions–even in cases of rape and incest–tells you more about his character than softball interviews or even hardball debates.

I remember when George W. Bush was first running for President. He came across as more personable than Al Gore, and the meme was that here was a guy you’d enjoy having a beer with. At the time, I was working with an IUPUI professor whose (very Republican) doctor husband had practiced many years in Midland, Texas. When a dinner party conversation turned to the campaign, he mentioned that he’d gone jogging three or four times a week with George W. and a couple of others for several of those years.

“Really!” I said. “What’s he like?”

The doctor thought for a couple of minutes, then said “Dumb and mean.”

I don’t offer this as irrefutable evidence of George W’s intellect or temperament; I have no idea what their relationship might have been, or how accurate the doctor’s assessment. But it is evidence that widely shared impressions of public figures do not necessarily saccord with assessments by people who actually know and work with those figures.

I thought about that conversation when I read this description of Hillary Clinton at the Political Animal.

As President Obama’s former speechwriter (including during the 2008 primary), Jon Favreau admits that he was not always a fan of Hillary Clinton. He writes about how his view changed while he worked with her in the White House.

“The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.”

Given the sustained assault on her character over the years, many of us have had a less-than-enthusiastic response to Hillary’s candidacy. She is clearly the most knowledgable and experienced, but she has also been the most tarnished–sometimes fairly, often not. People I’ve met who actually know her tend to share Favreau’s impressions.

Who’s right, who’s wrong? Who knows?

At least she isn’t arguing about who has the biggest penis.

Comments

The Question Is: Now What?

Will Saletan has a must-read essay at Slate. 

Saletan is responding to a bizarre accusation making the rounds on the Right to the effect that President Obama is really the reason for the rise of Donald Trump. (I notice that I use the word “bizarre” more frequently these days.) The American public, according to this “analysis,” is rejecting the extreme leftism of the Obama presidency.

As Saletan notes, this is bunk. In saner times, President Obama would have been a liberal Republican or, at most, a moderate Democrat. Saletan ticks off the policies of this administration and the place of those policies on the political spectrum, and forcefully rejects the thesis.

No, Obama didn’t cause Trump. What caused Trump was the GOP’s decision to negate Obama in every way, and thereby become the party of Trump….

If Obama had been a leftist, the GOP’s policy of negating him on every issue might have positioned Republicans in the mainstream. Instead, because Obama was a moderate, the GOP’s negation strategy pushed it toward the fringe. Obama was for fiscal responsibility and compromise, so Republicans were for absolutism and drama, risking a federal shutdown and a credit default. Obama was for respecting the Supreme Court, so the GOP was for defying judicial orders. Obama was for using sanctions to pressure Iran into a nuclear deal, so Republicans were for scrapping the deal and daring Iran to provoke a war. Obama, like Bush, was for drawing a clear distinction between terrorists and Muslims. So Republicans were for blurring that distinction.

In Trump, Republican voters have found their anti-Obama. Trump spurns not just political correctness, but correctness of any kind. He lies about Muslims and 9/11, insults women and people with disabilities, accuses a judge of bias for being Hispanic, and hurls profanities. Trump validates the maxim that in presidential primaries, the opposition party tends to choose a candidate who differs temperamentally from the incumbent. Obama is an adult. Therefore, Republicans are nominating a child.

You really should click through and read the entire thing–these few extracts don’t do it justice.

Here’s the conclusion:

So, yes, Obama led to Trump. But that’s only because the Republican Party decided to be what Obama wasn’t. And what Obama wasn’t—insecure, bitter, vindictive, xenophobic, sectarian—is what the GOP, in the era of Trump, has become.

Comments