Republicans have made much ado of late over the the McKinsey Study and it’s claim that 30% of employers will stop employees’ health coverage when the ACA is fully implemented in 2014. Having spent several years in the opinion research field, I know how to design studies that will produce whatever results I want. I know how to design an authentic study as well. I can tell the difference between the two by examining the methodology used. Any professional can, and lots of non professionals with common sense could as well. This is not proprietary. There is only one reason a company would refuse to disclose the methodology of a study.
The other day, the consulting company McKinsey released a startling study claiming that 30 percent of employers are planning to stop giving health insurance to their workers as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The study received a good deal [Murdoch delinked] of press coverage and was widely bandied about by conservative politicians and media outlets as proof that conservative warnings about the law are coming to pass.
But as a number of critics were quick to point out, McKinsey’s finding is at odds with many other studies — and the company did not release key portions of the study’s methodology, making it impossible to evaluate the study’s validity.
There’s now been a new twist in this story.
I’m told that the White House, as well as top Democrats on key House and Senate committees, have privately contacted McKinsey to ask for details on the study’s methodology. According to an Obama administration official and a source on the House Ways and Means Committee, the company refused.
A spokesperson for McKinsey — which does proprietary research regularly — declined comment… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
The reason McKinsey will not release the methodology is simple. To do so would reveal that the study’s conclusion was predetermined. In other words, it’s a Republican lie intended to defraud America.
However, for a moment, let’s just assume that the study is correct, and that in 2014, that is exactly what happens. What then? What better proof could there be that what we really need is single payer: Medicare for all!
17 Responses to “Silence Proves McKinsey Study False”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
All reputable people are calling “BULLSHIT!” on the McKinsey “study”. Paul Krugman at the New York Times:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/the-case-of-the-mystery-study/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
From Talking Points Memo:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/multiple-sources-throw-controversial-mckinsey-health-care-study-under-the-bus.php#disqus_thread
Even better – now McKinsey has tarnished it’s stellar reputation for creating peer reviewed studies and anything else they publish from here on out, peer reviewable or not, will be disregarded as crap. Nice going McKinsey – you just trashed your own companies stellar reputation over one half assed report that no one can rely on. Good job and say good bye to your firm! I hope the Repubs paid you good money for that, because it will be the last dime you ever earn! 😆 😆
should have been “company’s” – oops. That’s what I get for not reviewing it, before I push the submit button – dumass!
I guess their reputation wasn’t that stellar.
Thanks, Nameless. This verifies what I knew from experience.
You mean “Republicans lie , intend to defraud America.” Color me surprised. 😯
Really Judi. Bears shit in the woods too! 😉
That says a lot about the McKinsey study that they won’t release their methodology. What it says to me is that “we made the whole thing up as a useless talking point for the Repubs”. And I want better than Medicare for all – I want free healthcare that Canada has. Surely with the buying power of the US government, we could effectively raise what we pay doctors (so they would be happy) and other health care providers (also happy) and lower our med costs with the Big Pharma industry enough to lower our taxes for single payer significantly enough so that the extra taxes for this program would be next to nothing. And even better, the Insurance industry, with all of it’s profit margins and high paid CEO’s would be effectively eliminated. I would be so sorry over that, I would cry. 😥 😥 NOT! That would make me the happiest person in the world, considering that I can’t even get life insurance because of a pre-existing condition, a blown out back from 3 back surgeries. Yeah me and everyone else with a pre-existing condition and whom are disabled.
That’s exactly what it says Lisa. Reputable studies ALWAYS include documentation on methodology.
RepublicanTs lie????? What a shocker!
Really Patty! The Pope is Catholic too! 😉
You are absolutely correct Tom– first thing I want to know is methodology , and second ; who funded the study—-learned that way way back in college—
Thanks Phyllis! Sometimes Corporations do fund honest studies. 🙂
McKinsey came to my employer to “consult” on ways to “improve” our operation. Instead, they made things much more centrally-controlled, with an increase in costs, greatly larger management staff, poorer response time, and at the cost of employee morale. If they do to the nation what they did to my employer, we might as well be looking for a new nation to move to for asylum.
Realist, your presonal perspective adds volumes. The changes sound quite Republican in philosophy.
Couldn’t “Samantha” wiggle her nose or something and turn that evil pollster in to a “Newt”? Uh oh< I think she did. (Newt Gingerich)
If he’s her fault, she needs to redo that wiggle.