Do Graphs Really Show the Whole Picture?

Ideally, graphs are supposed to be tools to aid in our understanding of a topic. But do they clarify or confuse? That depends. When the topic is about something as controversial as healthcare, misleading graphics can become a problem as well.

Rationing

David Leonhardt, writer for the New York Times, sheds light on the health care controversy as he discusses the reality of rationing in the health care system throughout his article. At the end of his article he discusses the effects of rationing and includes a graphic to illustrate.

Visualizing the Consequences of Rationing

The graphic that is included in the article isn’t included in the text. That is the biggest problem. There is a small image of it in the left column next to the article, which you can click on. Doing so opens a new window with the enlarged graphic. The graphic shows a few things
· Spending on health care as share of GOP 2006
· 5 year survival rates of people (in percentages) with diseases including breast cancer, kidney transplant, childhood leukemia, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and colorectal cancer in England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.


Graph Pros
One things that I did like about the statistical graph was that it did include one example of where the U.S. had high survival rates, a few in the middle, and one where the U.S. had low survival rates. So it did appear somewhat balanced.

Also, Leonhardt does tie the graphic in nicely with his article.

Graph Cons
One of the first things that stuck out to me, that is somewhat trivial, was that the percentages spent on health care as share of GOP were from 2006. The article was written in 2009, which leads to me to question if that was the most recent statistics they had or if those statistics were the ones that fit best with the point they were trying to get across.

Another thing that stuck out was the examples chosen to include in the graphic. The writer could have purposely chosen diseases that the U.S. didn’t have high rates of survival in. Put another way, the author could have included a country or several countries that had terrible health care and compared the U.S. to them. There is a reason the author chose the countries he did to compare with the U.S. and the diseases he did.

Another question that arose when looking at the graphic was the sample size. One would hope the sample size would be the same for each country and that the sample size would be large.

Response to Leonhardt’s article

Leonhardt’s article received some response. One of which was from Ezra Klein wrote a short response agreeing with Leonhardt. Klein
includes the same graphic found in Leonhardt’s and comments on the graphic but also includes information about countries not on the graph such as Japan and France.

What to take with you

The most important thing to remember when reading a graph or statistics of any kind, is why did the author include this particular one? Could it have been said or presented in a different way?

Health Care and The Average Person

Although the health care bill has finally passed, not everyone feels the same way about it. Most people would agree that our country needs a change regarding our health care, but the debate begins when we discuss how to fix it.

In this chart, conducted by the Arkansas News Bureau, residents of Arkansas responded to the health care debate.

This chart is helpful in understanding where the average person stands on the health care issue. We so often hear how the President and politicians feel about the health care system, but it is helpful to see how everyday people feel about it.

The chart is easy to read because it is clearly labeled in all sections. It is easily understood which chart belongs to which question by the way they organized the page. The pie graph section of the chart is slightly confusing because it lists a great deal of information in text form. It would help if the writing was condensed a little better.

A good graphic shows information in a way that is easy to read. The reader should understand what statistcs and text go with what part of the graph. Every part of the graphic should be clearly labeled. This graphic appeals to all of these standards.

Many people have strong opinions on the health care reform and what it could do for our country. How many people really understand what the new bill means though? The Examiner feels that most people have a very idealistic view on the bill, saying that Americans expect reduced costs and insurance for all.

Whatever your stance may be on the issue, the reality is that the bill has now passed. We can only hope that it is at least a minor solution to our health care struggles.

Understanding the "Simply Stated"

Trying to understand the proposed health care bill is a task in it's self. People feel very strongly about the issue and other people don't know much about it at all. A lot of news outlets and websites have used graphics to simplify health care for those who don't understand. However these graphics aren't always helpful and make the issue even more confusing.


For example the LA Times provided a graphic that broke down how much the health care bill would cost over time. It provides the total cost per year ( in billions of dollars) in a graph. Below that it shows you the effect the bill would have on the national deficit per year (in billions of dollars) in another graph.


There are short, written explanations of each graph to help the viewer understand what they are looking at. It is color coded, green for cost, and yellow for impact on the deficit. However it also has a legend with four different colors when only two of the four are used. The lighter green and yellow are supposed to represent the original senate bill but there is no corresponding graph.


This confusion causes the viewer to look for something that is not there. There seems to be no point to have the lighter colors unless they showed representing graphs. So although this graph overall is helpful to understanding the bill, it could be more poignant. Graphics should help the viewer understand the issue faster and easier than this.

We Need Coverage Now, Not In a Year

Millions of American children suffer from what insurance companies call, "Pre-Existing Conditions". For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, a pre-existing health condition is simply a health issue you have before applying for and insurance policy.

For insurance companies, unless you are in absolutely perfect health, they will pick you apart and diagnose you with a pre-existing health condition and jack up the price for your insurance policy. If you are a little overweight, have bad hearing, bad vision, or if you drink alcohol, these insurance devils can and will jack up prices on your policy. I would even go as far as saying if you have a bald spot they would dictate that as being a pre-existing health condition.

According to Healthreform.gov, A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults. 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years

Either way, Americans with these types of conditions need coverage. Up until this new bill has been passed, insurance companies could simply deny you coverage if they felt you were too "high risk". Thanks to the new bill, everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions, will be covered no matter what. But don't get too excited now.

Anyone with pre-existing health conditions must wait to be covered. According to CSMonitor.com, although the new health care bill outlaws denial of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, this change won't take full effect for years.

Although the bill was just put into effect, children with pre-existing conditions will not be covered by their families policy for another 6 months. But, there is a back-up plan. Albeit a temporary back-up plan,

• U.S. citizens
• Legal Immigrants
• Who have been uninsured for over 6 months
• Have pre-existing health conditions
  

...will be put into a "high-risk insurance pool" and receive subsidies so they can afford to pay for the insurance companies premiums.

Although citizens with pre-existing health conditions may not receive full coverage for years, this Plan B is definitely a step in the right direction.

Boon for uninsured, Buster for states

Added cost to states in a time when they're having enough budget issues

At a time when state budgets are being cut and state employees are having to take unpaid furlough days, the federal government wants to put more strain on state budgets.

Apparently states with the greatest population of uninsured are going to take the biggest hit to their budgets. States such as Texas and California will have to kick in with a larger amount for their medicaid programs.

California's secretary of Health and Human Services Agency, Kim Belshé had this to say: “The federal government has to account for states’ inability to sustain our current programs, much less expand."

The graphic below I believe illustrates well the greatest affected states/regions of the country. The illustration is easy to decipher and clear in what it is displaying. Though the text underneath the two US representations is exactly clear as to what it means.

What exactly are they talking about here? Are we talking people with jobs that don't make enough to afford their own health insurance? I think what their trying to say is that its a portion of the employed or having income population that doesn't have H.I. and will in fact qualify for medicaid in 2014. It's not stated very clearly.

Overall if you looking at these maps to see where the hardest hit states are, it a good map. Secondly it also shows regions in which a majority of people will benefit and where the majority won't.

Another issue surrounding the topic of health care is, the government is putting in a stipulation that it is going to be mandatory to have. Many disagree with this like this guy.

Health Care Reform and You

For weeks it has been impossible to turn on any news network or read any paper without being bombarded with the health care debate. In a way this is a good thing since this bill has the power to affect the entire United States. Unfortunately, even with all the coverage, citizens are still left scratching their heads.



The public is very much in the dark into certain aspects of the bill even now that it has been passed. People are asking

1. Who is affected by the bill?


2. What does the bill do?


3. How am I helped/harmed?

These questions are only made more confusing by graphs and statistics that are impossible to read.

An example is this Gallup poll concerning the increased popularity of the bill now that it has been passed.

Publications like The New York Times have had to make special articles just to attempt to explain the bill to our citizens. According to The New York Times citizens that are completely uninsured are those most affected by the new bill. Up to 32 million people may now be able to be insured regardless of if they have been denied previously.

After reading all of this I am left with one thought, why arent those behind the bill able to explain it to the people? Why does it have to fall on publications to show the American people how their lives will be changed?

Recent Poll Proves Nothing

A recent poll done by CBS attempts to prove that politics plays a roll in...politics.

Link to full story here

What does, "Mostly political reasons" mean? I've been trying to wrap my head around it. It's hard, because it's such broad, sweeping, overly vague answer to a question that one could not possibly say someone is wrong by choosing that as an answer.

Of course, is it right?

For example, lets just change some of the nouns in that question above.

Why do priests pray?

• They think it's a good thing to do.
• Mostly religious reasons
• Don't know

Look, I can make a poll too CBS!

Then again, I couldn't possibly make this poll look as beautiful as CBS did. An absolutely commendable job dressing up this pile of tautological mush.

This is what happens when the news outlet makes the polls. They need a story, so they warp a poll to suit their needs. I can just picture the brainstorm session for this mess:

"Hey, I have an idea! Let's make a story about how all politicians are politicians!"

"Sounds like a great idea, Bob! We need some evidence to back this up though."

"I know, let's call random people during dinner and ask them if they think politicians are politicians!"

I'll stop picking on CBS now. They do a fine job, I read the full survey and it brought up some interesting points. I just wish they brought up those points in a nice, easy to read chart. To read the full survey, click here.

• On a quasi-related side note, I'm pretty sure the question, "Why are Democrats Trying to Pass Health Care Bill?" is a poor sentence. Just say it out loud. Shouldn't it be, "...Trying to Pass the Health Care Bill?" Keep up the good work CBS!

The TRUE cost of YOUR health

Every citizen with a pulse knows that one of the biggest debates on capital hill right now is the debate of health care. Many of us have questions like this:

• What should we do?
• How should we do it?
• When can we do it?

These are some of the most asked questions in the country by ordinary citizens like you and I. Unfortunately, it seems there is never a straight answer for these questions, even when the magnitude of them is of the utmost importance. It's only natural that we should want some kind of background on this issue. If you've been keeping up with the debate between political parties that has been going on, you've probably seen responses like these:

• the health care bill is wonderful
• the health care bill is awful
• the health care cost will reduce the national debt
• the health care bill with raise the national debt
• the health care bill will help people
• the health care bill will hurt people

If these responses do not confuse you, I don't know what will. If you would like to see even more of the opinions of our elected officials on the health care bill, check this out.

The #1 problem with the voting public and this health care reform is that they don't know what it entails, What it provides to them, or how their money is being spent. I to most defiantly fall into this category. It's important for people to note...The government has NO MONEY. The government has CITIZENS who have money. That's right folks, all those government paid programs that are "free" to the people, guess again. The wonderful tax payers who put their sweat, blood, and tears into working their 9-5 job for 30 years are graciously paying for that. When I say "graciously" I mean forcefully of course. So where exactly do you ask is all the money we pay for health care going? Take a look at this and you may understand better:

National Health Expenditures, 2008

Total = $2.3 Trillion

Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group.

This chart surprised me in someways, but in other ways not at all. I could of guessed that the majority of the money goes to hospital services and clinical care, but there are other categories I want more explanation for. For example, the above chart says 7% goes to investment. What kind of investment are we speaking of? Program administration receives another 7%, again what kind of administration is this? If this is my money don't I have the right to know the specifics of the use of it? Overall, this graphic didn't hurt my understanding of the where-abouts of the money, but it really just left me with more questions than when I started.

Much of the voting public is left with this question. What is causing health care costs to soar so high? Among the many reason why, here are some of the major reason for the sky-rocketing costs of health care:

• technology and prescription drugs
• chronic disease
• aging of the population
• administrative costs

for more detailed description of these, click here.

We as a voting public are left here, in our everyday lives trying to make it to the next day. Our elected officials in Washington are "working" to provide us with what they think we need, and what they think will help us. But really, even after reading the newspaper, watching the nightly news, and doing our best to stay informed about this topic; we are still just left to speculate and wonder. Is this really what we, the citizens, deserve? Will we ever know the true cost of our health?