Obama's State of the Union Address

[BenBurch]

Remember, medical bills discharged in bankruptcy are paid for by somebody; The caregivers. As a result, everything you buy from them is more expensive.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're exaggerating the flaws in the study, Zig.

You're ignoring the flaws in the study, SG.

It's not a matter of my being "sloppy".

Yes, actually, you are. Case in point:

Also, I don't believe the study said the medical bills were the sole or primary cause of all the bankruptcies, they said medical bills contributed in a significant way.

No, actually, they didn't. They included some people who may not have had any medical bills whatsoever. See what I mean about being sloppy?

No, I bet you don't.

Again you exaggerate in order to discount the problem of inability for millions to afford health care or health care insurance.

I haven't discounted anything other than this study. You keep trying to make this argument about something other than the study, because you can't defend the study on its own merits. But the study is the only thing I'm attacking in this thread, so I really don't care what you have to say about something that isn't part of the study.

(emphasis mine)

So it doesn't matter if the numbers are bogus, as long as your higher truth is served. Fake but accurate.

Sorry, I don't play that game. The numbers are bogus, whether or not that sentence is true.

 

[RandFan]

Remember, medical bills discharged in bankruptcy are paid for by somebody; The caregivers. As a result, everything you buy from them is more expensive.

For the indigent it's either the state or the county. Again, the same money is spent, less care is given.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're ignoring the flaws in the study, SG.[snipped repetitive stuff]
Sorry, I don't play that game. The numbers are bogus, whether or not that sentence is true.

Sorry, the authors of the study have more cred than you do. You have right wing confirmation bias and you are reading a summary of the study. They had access to more details and included the limitations of the conclusions in the study write up.

How the study was reported may have been problematic. What scientific research is ever properly reported on in the media? You'd get more traction complaining about how the reporting on the conclusions of the research were misstated in the news accounts than trying to say these researchers made unsupported claims.

 

[RandFan]

Spend more get less

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

Makes no sense, why pay more and get less?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, the authors of the study have more cred than you do.

Argument from authority much? Really, SG, when you use fallacies, at least try to mask them.

You have right wing confirmation bias and you are reading a summary of the study.

And now we have the ad hominem to go along with the argument from authority. Getting desperate?

I'm reading the material that's published. The actual journal article is not generally characterized as a "summary of the study".

They had access to more details and included the limitations of the conclusions in the study write up.

And that solves the problems I pointed out... how? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

How the study was reported may have been problematic. What scientific research is ever properly reported on in the media?

I'm not going by the press reports, YOU are. I'm going by the actual academic publication.

You'd get more traction complaining about how the reporting on the conclusions of the research were misstated in the news accounts than trying to say these researchers made unsupported claims.

Their claims aren't unsupported, they're meaningless. There's a difference.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, the authors of the study have more cred than you do. You have right wing confirmation bias and you are reading a summary of the study. They had access to more details and included the limitations of the conclusions in the study write up.

How the study was reported may have been problematic. What scientific research is ever properly reported on in the media? You'd get more traction complaining about how the reporting on the conclusions of the research were misstated in the news accounts than trying to say these researchers made unsupported claims.

In the end there is little doubt that medical bills play a significant contributory role in bankruptcy. The question becomes, to what end? We know that it is unnecessary so why as a society do we put up with it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Argument from authority much? Really, SG, when you use fallacies, at least try to mask them.[snipped more self repeating] There's a difference.

Expertise, not authority. Clearly they out expertise you.

Then there is the fact I quoted the results in the exact words the author's used and you are claiming they concluded something else.

As for going on and on with this typical pissing contest, I doubt anyone is reading it besides you and I. And I can see that your affronted puffery has no real substance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the end there is little doubt that medical bills play a significant contributory role in bankruptcy. The question becomes, to what end? We know that it is unnecessary so why as a society do we put up with it?

The question for the thread is, will the public continue to believe the claims that the USA's private medical system is superior. A lot of people in this country have the John Wayne movie version of the US and of themselves. What I mean by that is we believe as a society that we are always right, just, the best, and so on.

Facts like Bush allowed legal torture and indefinite detention without trial are ignored with cognitive dissonance.

Facts like we pay more and get less with our current health care system are conveniently overlooked and the belief our health care is unsurpassed continues.

And philosophy colored perceptions result in conclusions like, if one went bankrupt or one's house was foreclosed on during this economic recession that individual made the key poor choices; someone with unequal financial power and insatiable greed did not contribute to the other person's financial troubles.


When things get bad enough for enough people, I think some of that right wing narrative losses followers. At least I hope it will.

 

[Ziggurat]

Expertise, not authority.

Bwahahahahaha! Oh, that's a good one!

Then there is the fact I quoted the results in the exact words the author's used and you are claiming they concluded something else.

You gave up trying to quote from the paper a while ago, when you stopped actually making arguments about the facts. And since we've both quoted from the paper, that alone signifies... nothing. Really, it's like you're not even trying anymore. Actually, I'm wrong. I shouldn't have included the word "anymore".

As for going on and on with this typical pissing contest, I doubt anyone is reading it besides you and I. And I can see that your affronted puffery has no real substance.

When is the last time you made an argument about the contents of the paper itself? Puffery indeed, SG. You're the one who walked away from a debate on merits, not me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
You gave up trying to quote from the paper a while ago, when you stopped actually making arguments about the facts. ...

Yes, all the way back in post # 259, two posts back if you just count my posts in this side debate with you was the last time I quoted from the paper.

You moved the goal post from $1K to $5K. You mis-stated the authors' conclusion I believe confusing it with news reporters' conclusions. You claimed we couldn't see the breakdown of overlapping categories, I said, some of the breakdown was shown in table 2.

But more importantly I pointed out the authors of the study had access to the details including a further breakdown of the categories. Your criticism is the conclusion (or more specifically the implications of the conclusion) is not supported by the evidence at the same time you complain you can't see all the evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

You moved the goal post from $1K to $5K.

No, SG. The $1000 figure I gave came from a direct quote from the paper, and I gave that as an example of one thing I objected to from the paper. You then noted one figure in the paper which did not depend on the $1000 figure, but claimed incorrectly that this specific figure did not fall under my criticism. But that's not true, both because the reason the $1000 figure is objectionable still applies to the $5000 figure, and because of other problems. This isn't moving the goalpost, unless you want to claim that the authors kept moving the goalpost. But actually, it's nothing of the sort. It's just different measurements. I object to the $1000 measurement (which is in the paper), and I also object to the $5000 measurement. Nothing about my position has changed at all.

You mis-stated the authors' conclusion I believe confusing it with news reporters' conclusions.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have only ever referenced the actual paper. It was you, not me, who quoted from press accounts.

You claimed we couldn't see the breakdown of overlapping categories, I said, some of the breakdown was shown in table 2.

But we don't know how they overlap. And since I have different confidence in different categories, how they overlap matters.

But more importantly I pointed out the authors of the study had access to the details including a further breakdown of the categories.

This is completely irrelevant, since that breakdown IS NOT part of the reported figures, and it's the reported figures that I'm objecting to.

Your criticism is the conclusion (or more specifically the implications of the conclusion) is not supported by the evidence at the same time you complain you can't see all the evidence.

Wait... what? You're trying to argue that we should trust the author's conclusions because of evidence that they didn't present?

Seriously?

Oh, but that's argument from expertise, not argument from authority.

 

[RandFan]

Facts like Bush allowed legal torture and indefinite detention without trial are ignored with cognitive dissonance.
Facts like we pay more and get less with our current health care system are conveniently overlooked and the belief our health care is unsurpassed continues.

Yeah, we provide data and facts and the opponents provide negative arguments. Kinda like the evolution debate.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, we provide data and facts and the opponents provide negative arguments. Kinda like the evolution debate.

How would you know when you're not even seeing half the argument?

But then, you won't see this question either. Nothing will pierce your bubble of self-satisfaction.

 

[Snide]

Oh, but that's argument from expertise, not argument from authority.

If they are experts, how is it an argument from authority fallacy? Or are you denying their expertise?

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, we provide data and facts and the opponents provide negative arguments. Kinda like the evolution debate.

And just as dishonest. Conservatives used to pride themselves on honesty. My shame is that I stopped considering myself to be one long after they had abandoned that stance.

 

[RandFan]

And just as dishonest. Conservatives used to pride themselves on honesty. My shame is that I stopped considering myself to be one long after they had abandoned that stance.

Agreed. I started to move to the left when I started to see through the Truman Show. Not that the left doesn't engage in that also but it's significantly different.

 

[BenBurch]

If they are experts, how is it an argument from authority fallacy? Or are you denying their expertise?

Exactly. Argument from authority does not mean you cite an authority on a subject they can speak authoritatively about.

The fallacy comes when you have a disconnect between the expertise of the person cited and the thing being claimed.

If you say "Noted engineer Ben Burch says that E=I/R" you are citing somebody who knows the field and has a pronouncement on it.

If you say "Noted televangelist Benny Hinn says that electrical resistance is the Devil's work" you have appealed to an authority that has no expertise in the area under discussion but are still trying to use his authority to prove the case.

 

[Ziggurat]

If they are experts, how is it an argument from authority fallacy? Or are you denying their expertise?

She's arguing that they are right because they are experts. But being an expert doesn't make one right. Deferring to an expert when one cannot make an evaluation of a topic on one's own is perfectly sensible, but that's not the case here. We can evaluate the contents of that report. And the contents don't withstand scrutiny, in the sense that they did not measure what we actually want to know. This is made clear by the contents of the paper itself, as I have already explained. None of my criticism depends upon the authors not being experts. Demanding deference to their expertise does not, and cannot, change what it is that they measured, and make it something else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's arguing that they are right because they are experts....

No, I'm arguing that you are asserting your opinion over the expertise of the researchers and I believe they are correct and your assertions are not.