Murphy Figures Out How to Highlight, Screen Capture, and Tweet Multiple Photos: Progressives Tremble
I was telling Alex Tabarrok on Twitter that we can’t help but use the third person sometimes; it just sounds better.
Anyway, this 2013 article by Peter Suderman showcases how some of our progressive friends described the famous Oregon Medicaid experiment after Year 1 of the data came in–when it looked great for the program–versus Year 2, when none of the physical health indicators showed statistically significant benefits.
Because of that piece, I learned of Ezra Klein’s take (after Year 1), when he explained that the Oregon experiment was “the gold standard” and how we needed future studies along similar lines.
Now that today’s opponents of ObamaCare are using that Oregon experiment as Exhibit #1 to explain why repealing the ACA wouldn’t kill 36,000 people a year (as Bernie Sanders claims), Ezra Klein has a much more nuanced take on what we can conclude from that Oregon study. It’s not a contradiction, but you tell me if you think his considerations about the strengths and weaknesses of the study design were the same when he (a) thought it showed how great Medicaid was versus (b) when conservatives began quoting its results to show how little Medicaid apparently does for its recipients in terms of objective physical health outcomes.
Not a contradiction, but Ezra Klein's description of Oregon experiment different after Year 1 (when looked good) vs now against @oren_cass . pic.twitter.com/dcn3FzJrfG
— Robert P. Murphy (@BobMurphyEcon) June 29, 2017
