Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Even more Obamacare success and other health stories (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WonkBlog (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, riverlover

    (first linked entry in diary) has a serious problem with basic 3rd grade math.

    The writer goes on and on about the Obama Admin. declaring "80%, 80%, 80%" of users getting through to enrollment will be defined as success.

    Then, in numbered paragraph 6 comes this clunker:

    6. Don't forget the denominator. Whether the site is working for 80 percent of users has a lot to do with how many users there actually are. The Obama administration wants the site to be functional for 50,000 people at a time. If they succeed, then it will be easy for them to hit their goal if only 30,000 people are using it at any given moment.
    That's right friends and neighbors!
    30,000/50,000 now equals 80%!

    I didn't know that! It must be the New-New Super Improved MATH!

    Back in my day of doing math problems by using a twig and wet clay in a tray on my knees, 30,000/50,000 was ONLY 60%. Gad! That math is as bad as Sarah Palin on "Jeopardy!"

    If you are going to praise 80%, could you at least get the math right?



    "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

    by WineRev on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 04:59:28 AM PST

    •  Ezra's math is fine (5+ / 0-)

      His piece was talking about two different denominators. The "denominator" is the number of people using it at a time. The numerator is the number using it successfully.

      If the denominator is 30,000, the target numerator is 24,000 using it successfully.

      Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills before criticizing other people's math skills. Let me guess: did you find "word problems" a pain, back in the day? If so, you have a ton of company.

      •  I think Ezra's language was substandard in this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nicteis, Sylv

        case. In fact, it doesn't quite make sense.

        In facter, I just tried to rewrite it, by way of example, and discovered that I couldn't quite figure out what the hell he meant. "If they succeed, then it will be easy for them to hit their goal if only 30,000 people are using it at any given moment …" Uh. Whuh?

        Seems to me that if they succeed, then it will be easy for them to hit their goal because, having succeeded, they will have hit their goal. It's kind of a tautology. Or is he talking about different goals and  successes? Is he suggesting (unclearly) that the administration could declare victory if 80% of 30,000 users are being successful, even though elsewhere they have declared that the denominator in question is 50,000?

        I really don't know what his point is supposed to be.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 07:49:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A valid cavil (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't stumble over that phrasing, but that's probably because I wasn't reading it as carefully as you were.

          What he must have meant was, "the fewer people try to sign up, the easier it will be for them to hit the 80% successful goal." But assuming so, he should have said what he meant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site