I have been seeing a commercial lately which is dishonest on two different levels. Though everything it says is true, in a VERY technical sense, the impression it conveys is absolutely dishonest.

The commercial features a number of children playing ring around the rosie, while a voice over says that they can all fall down, except for one. The voice over then goes on to explain that "1 in 6 of us are uninsured".

Where to begin?

It has been explained over and over, but since the number keeps coming up, let us look first at the "1 in 6" myth.

Yes, the number does come from a real study, and I am not about to challenge the actual numbers here. They may be invalid, they may not, but even assuming the numbers are 100% accurate, most people who cite them are misrepresenting what the numbers actually say.

The myth is usually heard as "1 in 6 Americans are uninsured", which is simply untrue. The actual study said that during the year in question (the most recent I have seen were for 2004), approximately 1 in 6 Americans (15.7% for 2004) were without insurance at some point during the year.

This is nowhere near the same thing as being "uninsured" in any meaningful sense. In fact, as I spent two weeks between quitting one job and starting another in that very year, I am counted as one of those uninsured persons for 2004, as is my wife. However, I can say for both of us that we categorically were not "uninsured" in any real sense, we simply had no coverage for about 14 days when I switched jobs. Yet, according to this study, we were lacking insurance.

Yes, some among that "1 in 6" figure are people without insurance for all or most of the year.. Some are uninsured because they are young and don't want to pay for insurance they will rarely use, others are uninsured because they are poor or unemployed, others are uninsured because they are rich enough to not worry about medical bills, and still others chose medical savings plans rather than traditional insurance. And then on top of all those are the people who were "uninsured" for only a short time during the year in question.

In short, the 1-in-6 is a hugely inflated number to begin with, as it includes everyone who was uninsured for even a day during the year. But even if we could somehow exclude those people, the number is still meaningless, as it lumps together those voluntarily uninsured, those uninsured due to poverty, and those using medical savings accounts and other alternatives to traditional insurance. In other words, it is as meaningless a statistic as one could imagine.

Lastly, the 1-in-6 figure often carries with it an unspoken, and even more untrue assumption. The argument is often phrased to imply that those without insurance do not receive medical care, which is simply untrue. Yes, it may be hard to get a nose job or a wart removed when you have no cash and no insurance, but the poor aren't dying in the streets either. Emergency care is never withheld for lack of means, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many clinics, medical schools, charities, etc provide all manner of free care for the poor. It may not be the best care, and the wait may be long, but there is little essential health care that cannot be had if one is willing to make some effort.  So to imply that not only are 1 in 6 uninsured, but that that same 1 in 6 has no access to care, is just not true.

But the commercial makes it even worse.

While never explicitly saying so, the use of children makes clear that the commercial makers want us to extrapolate from the dubious proposition "1-in-6 Americans are uninsured" to the even more dubious proposition that 1 in 6 CHILDREN are uninsured.

And that just is not true.

As I said above, most of those choosing to opt out of insurance are those young and healthy who feel insurance is an unneeded expense. This group is one of the least likely to have children, as, the moment they have children, these same people tend to opt in to those same insurance plans they earlier eschewed.

And the other group without insurance, the poor that the commercial makers want us to believe make up most of that 1-in-6 figure, are also very unlikely to have uninsured children. Excepting the elderly, I can think of no group covered by more social welfare programs than the young. Children whose parents earn up to 3 or 4 times the poverty level are covered by free medical programs in most states, usually until they are 18 years old. So I find it highly unlikely that, even if their parents are uninsured, the children of the impoverished are themselves without insurance.

All of which makes this commercial rather deceptive in my mind. First by trying to present the 1-in-6 figure for uninsured as if it means that 16-17% of Americans have no access to medical care. Second, and much worse, by asking viewers to extrapolate from that statement to the conclusion that 16-17% of children in America are similarly unable to get health care. The facts do not seem to support the former proposition, and certainly do not support the latter.

As many know, I do not favor any government involvement in health care, so obviously this commercial would be offensive to me. But even were I on the other side, I would have to object. It is one thing to present the facts in a favorable light, but it is another to distort them to such a degree. To present such a deceptive ad does not help the cause of universal health care, but rather makes it seem the proponents have such weak arguments they must resort to lies. And if that is the case, I must assume that the honest proponents have given up, and we are left with nothing but demagogues who find such blatant falsehoods and manipulation acceptable tactics.

I may disagree with the left on many things, but I do have to respect those who make an honest case for their liberal views. I can civilly debate with those who think the role of government is much broader than I allow. But once one has given up honest debate and starts presenting propaganda like this commercial as their argument,my patience runs thin.

When the left, which once thought of itself as the intellectual vanguard creating a new socialist utopia is now reduced to shoddy propaganda and misleading statistics, it is truly a sorry sight.