Close this search box.
Close this search box.

Obama’s Census Bureau Officially Plans To Cook Obamacare’s Books

President Barack Obama laughs with aides aboard Air Force One en route to Singapore, Nov. 14, 2009.

It’s official: the Census Bureau is cooking the books to make it almost impossible to measure the effects of Obamacare.

In a bombshell article, the New York Times reported earlier today that the U.S. Census Bureau planned to radically alter its method of calculating the number of people without health insurance in the U.S. The result? The changes will be so radical that “it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.”

From the NYT:

You know what else is due this fall? A big election in which the effects of Obamacare are sure to weigh on voters’ minds.

Don’t worry, though. Census officials said the timing of the change was “coincidental” and “unfortunate.” The latter is most certainly the case, but unfortunate for whom? Certainly not the White House, which mere days ago was bragging, Mission Accomplished-style, about how amazing the Obama implementation was going. Does anyone actually believe this White House would want to change and obscure favorable numbers in the weeks and months ahead of an election?

It turns out the suspiciously timed changes aren’t the only remarkable aspect of that NYT story. Apparently the government’s statisticians knew for some time that the old method of collecting data on the uninsured significantly overstated their numbers:

So not only will the new numbers be close to useless when it comes to using them to figure out if Obamacare has had its intended effect, it turns out the old numbers — which the White House used to cram the law down America’s throat — were bogus as well. Heads they win, tails you lose. But remember: all of this is totally coincidental and really unfortunate.

Unrelated: remember that time the Obama administration tried to force the head of the Census Bureau to report directly to the White House, rather than to the Secretary of Commerce, as required by law?

We’re sure that was just a coincidence, too.

UPDATE: This is how the mature, trustworthy adults whose White House salaries you pay handle questions about data being conveniently disappeared right before elections:

Nailed it, Jesse. Nothing says “confidence in victory” like unilaterally altering the strike zone in the ninth inning and then hiding the scoreboard just to be safe.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments