Replies

The first six sentences tell you all you need to know. A group of researchers in conjunction with the CDC performed a study with some objective trackable evidence mixed in with a lot of surveying of people (again both objective and subjective questions were asked).

To Wit: “The partial model for Obamacare—Massachusetts’ near-universal health care program, adopted in 2006—has resulted in measurably improved health.

According to a study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Michigan—with help from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—the health of Massachusetts residents rose more in the first five years of the program than did the health of residents in other New England states.

Also rising was the use of some preventive care—including tests that identify early colon, breast, and cervical cancers—and cholesterol tests for heart disease risk. Massachusetts residents were also increasingly likely to say they had health insurance and access to a personal doctor after 2006. They were less likely to say costs stood in the way of getting care than were other New Englanders.

For the study, annual random telephone surveys were made between 2001 and 2011 asking 345,211 New Englanders aged 18-64 questions about their general, physical, and mental health. The data were gathered by the CDC and state health departments.”

Just one note regarding the above: “cholesterol tests for heart disease risk.” cholesterol level has less to do with heart disease risk than does heredity and magnesium levels. They make their study look legit by making claims about seemingly legitimate items, but then they undermine the validity by citing outdated ideas or asking subjective questions.

No doubt with the players involved, the study is biased.