Passing On the Misinformation

I gather that there is some inside the Beltway rumor mill which maintains urban legends for long periods of time. Furthermore they are reproduced without anyone ever asking if they are true, or what the basis is of the legend.

Klein in the Washington Post reiterates the fallacy when he states:

7. “Two married recent retirees who had typical earnings over their lives will have paid about $88,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes through the payroll tax, according to a calculation by Eugene Steuerle, Stephanie Rennane and Caleb Quakenbush, all of the Urban Institute. That sum includes the portion of the tax that employers pay and is expressed in today’s dollars (adjusted for both inflation and the interest the money would have earned over the years). In return for the $88,000 in lifetime taxes, that married couple can expect to receive benefits worth more than three times as much: $387,000.”

8. “Patients and doctors alike gravitate toward the latest, most expensive treatment, regardless of whether it is the most effective. Common treatments for prostate cancer, for example, range from about $25,000 to more than $100,000. “No therapy has been shown superior to another,” an analysis by the RAND Corporation concluded. But which therapies are growing the most rapidly? The most expensive ones, like proton radiation therapy. ”

Klein has allegedly obtained these from some book by Leonhardt at the NY Times. Now let me comment on both, and my comments are based upon verifiable facts, generally primary research.

First, the hypothetical couple mentioned in the first paragraph are in the bottom 20% of the income base. For the upper 80% of the folks, why they contribute a great deal more, and in fact the top 40% contribute well in excess of what they get in return. In fact, the lower the income the sicker the person, thus the lower incomes use most of the services and pay least of the funds. I did an extensive analysis of this about 4 years ago, updated it 2 years ago. Thus it would help to understand the facts and not merelt parrot what they find to validate their opinions. But alas it is the Press, and we really have such a poor Press.

Now for the second. Here I wrote a detail draft book on Prostate Cancer. The statement that no therapy has been shown to be superior is not quite correct. It all depends and the details must be examined. In fact there is a gross distortion of the underlying evidence to condense the result in such a statement. For aggressive yet localized PCa, surgery can be quite effective. For indolent PCa, one might just leave it alone. The problem is we have not yet determined the nest way to split the two. That is the real answer, not what is quoted above.

The Press all too often never does due diligence on what they believe are facts. They are all too often just urban legends.

The (New) New Republic, Croly may be turning in his grave, has written a piece which is rather down on the young man making the statements from his beloved economic writer. Notwithstanding the long piece, and the critique from the left leaning economists, failing to validate facts is a valid criticism.