Obamacare 5 years later. Crow, anyone?

[RandFan]

I'm not taking sides on this. I would like to point out, however, that good discussion can take place on the basis of deductive reasoning. "Proof" doesn't always exist for discussion in the realm of ideas.

If you make a claim the onus is on YOU to demonstrate it. The claim in question is not one that can be settled merely philosophically ir is an empirical claim.

To demand that others demonstrate YOUR claim is to argue in bad faith.

By "you" and "your" I don't mean you Emily's Cat. However, I very much resent that this is even an issue. This is a skeptics forum. Being lectured about how evidence isn't necessary for an empirical claim is rather disappointing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, all you people take your internet arguments way too seriously.

How 'bout a nice round of hugs and a frosty beverage?

 

[RandFan]

Because right now, the American model is effectively paying the lion's share for R&D in medicine, and the rest of the world is getting a free ride.

This is what is known as a declarative sentence. A declarative sentence is one in which a proposition is made that can either be true or false. Another word for this statement is "assertion". It's also an empirical claim.

When you make a an empirical claim and you are challenged on it, the honest thing to do is to demonstrate it or retract it.

 

[sunmaster14]

If you make a claim the onus is on YOU to demonstrate it. The claim in question is not one that can be settled merely philosophically ir is an empirical claim.

Evidence?

To demand that others demonstrate YOUR claim is to argue in bad faith.

This is an unsupported assertion. It is also a strawman. I only ask that somebody provide a plausible alternative explanation for the data before asking me to do a lot more work that they will simply ignore.

I'll note for the record that it happens quite a lot that I go to great effort to prove beyond a doubt that sombody's claim is wrong (or that my claim is right), only to have my detractor disappear from the thread, without either concession or acknowledgement, until the matter is forgotten. You have done this to me more than once. One instance that sticks out in my mind is the recent derail thread about Hurricane Katrina and Michael Brown.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you make a claim the onus is on YOU to demonstrate it. The claim in question is not one that can be settled merely philosophically ir is an empirical claim.

To demand that others demonstrate YOUR claim is to argue in bad faith.

By "you" and "your" I don't mean you Emily's Cat. However, I very much resent that this is even an issue. This is a skeptics forum. Being lectured about how evidence isn't necessary for an empirical claim is rather disappointing.

I get that. Sometimes, "proof" doesn't exist. Nobody has done a study. Nothing has been investigated. It shouldn't prevent us from discussing ideas, or even presenting opinions and beliefs. Ideally, we should all have enough sense to preface those statements as opinions and beliefs - but sometimes it will simply be forgotten.

I've seen many times where "prove or retract" has been used as a sledgehammer. It doesn't matter how well reasoned or considered an idea is - if the opponent insists on hard proof, then oh well, you're just out of luck. Personally, I prefer to start most approaches by asking for the person's reasoning - "Why do you think that's the case?" will often get me much further than demanding incontrovertible proof. Especially when (as in many cases in political forums) any proof is simply going to be picked to pieces and dismissed because of who the author is.

My preference is to try to enable discussion and the sharing (and friendly critique) of ideas whenever possible. When a claim becomes so strong and so specific that a request for proof is unavoidable... then I pull out the big guns. But seriously - if you guys start asking me for proof of every bit of information that I share relevant to my field, you're going to become very disillusioned with me. A huge amount of what I share is knowledge based on experience and years of training. A lot of it is also based on specific RL work efforts I've done, but which are not even remotely close to "published". In very many cases, I can share the broad-brush insights I've gained, but to share actual data would be a breach of both my contractual limitations and of ethics - it's proprietary and confidential data that isn't mine to share.

I'm not asking for you (general) to set aside all reason and logic. I'm asking that you start with a slightly softer approach.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is what is known as a declarative sentence. A declarative sentence is one in which a proposition is made that can either be true or false. Another word for this statement is "assertion". It's also an empirical claim.

When you make a an empirical claim and you are challenged on it, the honest thing to do is to demonstrate it or retract it.

No, I am under no obligation to do work to support it. It is hardly dishonest not to. I am not only trying to do some work, but I am engaged in two other topics at the moment. Also, it is the opposite of honest to retract something that I still believe in.

If you want to discuss, then provide a little commentary on the subject other than mindless gainsaying or demands that I do even more work than I have done.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence?

I've provided that evidence over and over. WTH?

Philosophic burden of proof

This is an unsupported assertion. It is also a strawman. I only ask that somebody provide a plausible alternative explanation for the data before asking me to do a lot more work that they will simply ignore.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. I think you know you are wrong and the data isn't even out there. I'm not going to play a wild goose chase to please you. This isn't a joke.

I'll note for the record that it happens quite a lot that I go to great effort to prove beyond a doubt that sombody's claim is wrong (or that my claim is right), only to have my detractor disappear from the thread, without either concession or acknowledgement, until the matter is forgotten. You have done this to me more than once. One instance that sticks out in my mind is the recent derail thread about Hurricane Katrina and Michael Brown.

This is irrelevant. Just step up to the plate and retract the claim or demonstrate it.

 

[RandFan]

No, I am under no obligation to do work to support it. It is hardly dishonest not to. I am not only trying to do some work, but I am engaged in two other topics at the moment. Also, it is the opposite of honest to retract something that I still believe in.

If you want to discuss, then provide a little commentary on the subject other than mindless gainsaying or demands that I do even more work than I have done.

Just demonstrate your claim or retract it.

That's all. No need for all of this.

 

[sunmaster14]

Just demonstrate your claim or retract it.

That's all. No need for all of this.

I will indulge you this once because I had a spare moment. See here:

Adding to this, we also tend to be early adopters of new drugs, which does raise our costs somewhat. Drugs are approved about two years sooner in the US than in other countries, and we like to take them immediately. Analysts say this makes the “average” pill taken in the US in 2006 about 118% more expensive than the “average” pill taken in other countries.

So to recap, although we actually take fewer drugs than people in other countries, we favor more expensive drugs, and we also pay more for the same drug. Add in the fact that we may be subsidizing R&D and that we also subsidize drug prices for the rest of the world, and there goes about $100 billion. This accounts for about 15% of our “extra” spending for health care.

Here's Megan McArdle's take as well. She actually understands economics very well.

 

[RandFan]

I get that. Sometimes, "proof" doesn't exist. Nobody has done a study. Nothing has been investigated. It shouldn't prevent us from discussing ideas, or even presenting opinions and beliefs. Ideally, we should all have enough sense to preface those statements as opinions and beliefs - but sometimes it will simply be forgotten.

I've seen many times where "prove or retract" has been used as a sledgehammer. It doesn't matter how well reasoned or considered an idea is - if the opponent insists on hard proof, then oh well, you're just out of luck. Personally, I prefer to start most approaches by asking for the person's reasoning - "Why do you think that's the case?" will often get me much further than demanding incontrovertible proof. Especially when (as in many cases in political forums) any proof is simply going to be picked to pieces and dismissed because of who the author is.

My preference is to try to enable discussion and the sharing (and friendly critique) of ideas whenever possible. When a claim becomes so strong and so specific that a request for proof is unavoidable... then I pull out the big guns. But seriously - if you guys start asking me for proof of every bit of information that I share relevant to my field, you're going to become very disillusioned with me. A huge amount of what I share is knowledge based on experience and years of training. A lot of it is also based on specific RL work efforts I've done, but which are not even remotely close to "published". In very many cases, I can share the broad-brush insights I've gained, but to share actual data would be a breach of both my contractual limitations and of ethics - it's proprietary and confidential data that isn't mine to share.

I'm not asking for you (general) to set aside all reason and logic. I'm asking that you start with a slightly softer approach.

{sigh}

Look, I've been in this situation many times. I have a really simple response. When called on it, if I meant to offer an opinion for discussion I state that it is an opinion. If I fail to and someone asks me for evidence I simply point out that it's an opinion and not demand others demonstrate my claim.

I'm grateful for your post and I agree with you but, IMO, it's really not relevant to what is going on.

In any event, when I'm upset it usually means eventually that I get in trouble and my posts get moved and sometimes I get a yellow card so I'm leaving the discussion for now.

As far as Sunmaster goes, I've no ill will for him and I realize that once the spot light is on you and everyone is demanding things it all goes to hell. That's not our fault.

 

[RandFan]

I will indulge you this once...

Then I've no reason to trust what you say and I don't care what you have to say. If you cannot do something as simple as support your claims then what is the point? Bye.

 

[3point14]

I've seen many times where "prove or retract" has been used as a sledgehammer. It doesn't matter how well reasoned or considered an idea is - if the opponent insists on hard proof, then oh well, you're just out of luck. Personally, I prefer to start most approaches by asking for the person's reasoning - "Why do you think that's the case?" will often get me much further than demanding incontrovertible proof. Especially when (as in many cases in political forums) any proof is simply going to be picked to pieces and dismissed because of who the author is.

This is just equivocation. If one states something as fact then one has the responsibility to either demonstrate the fact or withdraw the statement. Please re-read the exchange and note that there is no question of the statement's veracity at all, it is stated as fact. It is only when someone comes along with 'tedious demands for evidence' that the back-pedal happens and all of a sudden it's 'an opinion' formed with 'logic'.

It's simply trying to slip bollocks statements into the argument hoping no-one notices that the statement is unsupported. I suspect it works well in verbal debates where it can be mentioned before the brow-beating, but in an environment where words can be retrieved in their exact form from god know how long ago and that claims to be a hang out for the skeptical community, it just isn't acceptable to state a 'fact' and then not withdraw it if it cannot be demonstrated once challenged. Actually, it's not even acceptable to try to get it on the record without it being challenged.

It's dishonest, it's definitely not critical thinking and it's really, really not worthy of this place that we're actually having a discussion about the rules of debate when we're all supposed to know what they are.

Really, this is all 101. The fact that some people don't know the basics really should be a cause of huge embarrassment for some.


ETA: This might help. But I honestly doubt it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Look, I've been in this situation many times. I have a really simple response. When called on it, if I meant to offer an opinion for discussion I state that it is an opinion. If I fail to and someone asks me for evidence I simply point out that it's an opinion and not demand others demonstrate my claim.

Sure - that's my preference also, and it's something that I try to do myself. It try to be diligent in expressing my opinions as opinions, but sometimes there's some grey area.

It's also sometimes hard for someone to say "It's my opinion based on x, yz, and z reasoning..." when the only thing they've been addressed with is "Post Proof or Retract!!!!"

I'm grateful for your post and I agree with you but, IMO, it's really not relevant to what is going on.

Meh - it's only relevant so far as youse guys are filling a thread that is relevant to my interests with a lot of needless back and forth . No hard feelings, no problems, I just can't ever seem to keep my mouth shut and stay out of other peoples' business!

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is just equivocation.
...

ETA: This might help. But I honestly doubt it.

And now I'm on the receiving end? I do find the implication in your response to me fairly insulting. Perhaps not an outright breach of the MA... but unnecessary nonetheless.

Most of this forum is NOT dedicated to formal debate. It's a discussion forum. Yes, we are skeptics, and yes, we *should* always be on our best behavior. But the majority of the threads here are conversations. I don't see any reason that I should treat any of the posters here more harshly than I would treat them IRL.

And unless I'm at a lectern involved in a formal debate... I am not inclined to be so inflexible in my dealings with people. I see no utility in it.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Taxes may be lower, but the costs of your healthcare, and your health insurance, is a HEEEEELLLLLL of a lot higher than in either CA or UK!

Give your money to the government where they put it to good use (infrastructure building, a bloated military that "protects your freedoms!" education, you name it.) Or give EVEN MORE MONEY to a money-hungry greedy bastard who will just pocket it, and buy him or herself a yacht that you'll never see.

There's your "choices."

I already have health care and its private and its cheaper than CA or UK

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

In Canada you may purchase supplemental insurance if you desire. You also have access to the entire spectrum of health care.

About $2500 of the taxes my wife and I pay go to maintaining the provincial healthcare system. How much is your annual insurance premium?

I think I pay about $700 a year

Anyway if you want a picture of a free health care system in the US look at the VA hospitals. Its not pretty.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I already have health care and its private and its cheaper than CA or UK

I think I pay about $700 a year

What is your employer's portion of your health care costs? Being an actuary, I assume that you're familiar with the fact that employers pay the bulk of the cost most times, and it is hidden from the employee. I assume you understand that your employee contribution is not the cost of your coverage, right? Because I would expect an actuary of any flavor to understand that.

Anyway if you want a picture of a free health care system in the US look at the VA hospitals. Its not pretty.

You could also look at TriCare, or at any military health facility. Of course, that might skew the answers you give. Cherry picking examples is really important for maintaining the illusion.

 

[RandFan]

Sure - that's my preference also, and it's something that I try to do myself. It try to be diligent in expressing my opinions as opinions, but sometimes there's some grey area.

It's also sometimes hard for someone to say "It's my opinion based on x, yz, and z reasoning..." when the only thing they've been addressed with is "Post Proof or Retract!!!!"

Meh - it's only relevant so far as youse guys are filling a thread that is relevant to my interests with a lot of needless back and forth . No hard feelings, no problems, I just can't ever seem to keep my mouth shut and stay out of other peoples' business!

It's all good. There are just some people who expect everyone to take their word at face value and refuse to discuss in good faith. That's life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's all good. There are just some people who expect everyone to take their word at face value and refuse to discuss in good faith. That's life.

Everyone's got problems of one type or another. Have I mentioned my mild OCD? The inability to let things go if I feel I haven't been understood? Or the complete insanity that is my need to make the bed exactly right just so... Or how I've banned my husband from loading the dishwasher because he... does... it... wrong... They still get just as clean, but he stacks them wrong!

Through much effort and browbeating, I have gradually learned to begin recognizing cases where the battle gleans nothing. It's painful though

 

[Trebuchet]

I think I pay about $700 a year.

Find yourself a completely private policy with no employer contribution. It'll cost a little more. Ha-ha. It'll cost a LOT more.

I paid NOTHING for my coverage for most of my career, but that didn't mean nobody was paying for it. Most employers don't do that, because they don't have the powerful unions mine did. And many employers (Walmart) keep their workers from being full-time and pay nothing at all. That's what the ACA is all about.