Michelle Bachmann could be our next president.

[JohnnyG]

You are not the only person I am responding to here.

Then you should have said so or not quoted me alone in the post.

But speaking of straw men:No one said it was.

Yes they did, that is what started this whole diversion.

Preventive care "saves money."

Let's go back to the start here:To which I said, "That's a misleading cherry pick you quoted."

"Vast majority of preventative measures don't save money" falsely represents what that paper says.

The quote from the paper is indeed one of the conclusions of their analysis. It directly addressed the question brought up here.

So what straw man are you referring to?

You seem to be arguing against using this fact to to decide whether or not preventive medicine should be practiced - but I did not make that claim, nor did I claim the authors did.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Wow, just glancing at all these posts I fail to see what all this has to do with Michelle Bachmann. She seems to have dropped out of the news like a rock for now. I personally think that Mitt Romney is unelectable since he seems to be an ******* from what I see. Have we ever elected an ******* for president before?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then you should have said so or not quoted me alone in the post.

Replying with a quote does not preclude the reply addressing more than the person. Try to keep up.

Yes they did, that is what started this whole diversion.

Some preventative care does save money.
Not all preventative care saves money.

The quote from the paper is indeed one of the conclusions of their analysis. It directly addressed the question brought up here.

The study in question does not support your position and you are distorting the meaning of the finding you quoted.

You seem to be arguing against using this fact to to decide whether or not preventive medicine should be practiced - but I did not make that claim, nor did I claim the authors did.

You are functioning in a paralel universe, JohnnyG. This is part of the disconnect. That is not what I am arguing, it is your distortion of what I am arguing.

I am arguing that you cherry picked a research finding thereby distorting what the study actually found.


The discussion was whether or not the Democratic proposal to decrease Medicare costs (in addition to other measures) was true when they claimed that preventative care could save the system some money. It can and the citation did not support the opposite conclusion.

 

[leftysergeant]

Wow, just glancing at all these posts I fail to see what all this has to do with Michelle Bachmann. She seems to have dropped out of the news like a rock for now.

She may be waiting until she thinks the military people have forgotten what a dirtbag idea she put forward regarding veterans' benefits. No Republicon is going to make it if they cannot fool the military into thinking that they know something about building a better national defense. Bachmann just stuck her finger right in the light socket on that one.

Have we ever elected an ******* for president before?

Allegedly, we have, twice but there are strong indications that his younger brother's bimbo cooked the election results to do it the first time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow, just glancing at all these posts I fail to see what all this has to do with Michelle Bachmann. She seems to have dropped out of the news like a rock for now. I personally think that Mitt Romney is unelectable since he seems to be an ******* from what I see. Have we ever elected an ******* for president before?

Sorry, I think we are trying to stay on topic but I realize we are discussing a limited aspect of the topic. The Repub claim, including Bachmann's, is that the Ryan economic plan saves Medicare. The Democratic rebuttal is that the Ryan plan changes the nature of Medicare and doesn't save it.

These issues were discussed with examples from Politifact describing Bachmann as wrong about almost all the facts she purports are true.

 

[RhodyDave]

Why do so many of you care about someone's physical appearance? This is not a beauty pageant, it's a political race. I want to elect the best person for the job based on brains, policies, and track record. I don't care what they look like - and as a matter of example I present my local representative, James Langevin. He's physically disabled, needing a wheelchair. I've voted for him several times and he does a good job - his looks are irrelevant.

I worry about the future of this country with so many people expressing views as seen here.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, I think we are trying to stay on topic but I realize we are discussing a limited aspect of the topic. The Repub claim, including Bachmann's, is that the Ryan economic plan saves Medicare. The Democratic rebuttal is that the Ryan plan changes the nature of Medicare and doesn't save it.

These issues were discussed with examples from Politifact describing Bachmann as wrong about almost all the facts she purports are true.

Actually, that's not really what the discussion was about, which is probably why you have been misunderstanding what others (myself included) have been trying to say.

MNBrant is correct -- it was actually a derail and has nothing to do with Bachmann per se (nor did it have anything to do with the Ryan plan). We were discussing how much Bachmann lies, and someone posted a link to what they considered a lie by Obama. Someone else responded that they should have quoted the relevant parts of the article that showed Obama's lie rather than just linking to the article. As a somewhat snarky response (and I must admit that I'm probably ultimately responsible for the derail) I posted the entire list of Obama's false and "pants on fire" statements from PolitiFact. Then someone asked why one of those statements was rated "false" by PolitiFact. So, in fact, we have been discussing why Obama's statement about his health care plan was rated "false" by PolitiFact.

-Bri

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Why do so many of you care about someone's physical appearance? This is not a beauty pageant, it's a political race. I want to elect the best person for the job based on brains, policies, and track record. I don't care what they look like - and as a matter of example I present my local representative, James Langevin. He's physically disabled, needing a wheelchair. I've voted for him several times and he does a good job - his looks are irrelevant.

I worry about the future of this country with so many people expressing views as seen here.

It's been along time since the presidential election meant anything. Thanks for bringing your local politician to the light. While I really don't care whether he is in a wheelchair or not, I do like looking at websites of local politicians that people like. As far as Bachmann's physical appearance goes, that was a joke, I like that fact that she has no clue what she is doing and could possibly bring the whole thing down sooner than planned. This could be the only thing that could save us. Heh, I was hearing about a new investment called the "Black Swan." Apparently it goes up if the stock market melts away completely. I hear they are selling like hotcakes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, that's not really what the discussion was about, which is probably why you have been misunderstanding what others (myself included) have been trying to say.

MNBrant is correct -- it was actually a derail and has nothing to do with Bachmann per se (nor did it have anything to do with the Ryan plan). We were discussing how much Bachmann lies, and someone posted a link to what they considered a lie by Obama. Someone else responded that they should have quoted the relevant parts of the article that showed Obama's lie rather than just linking to the article. As a somewhat snarky response (and I must admit that I'm probably ultimately responsible for the derail) I posted the entire list of Obama's false and "pants on fire" statements from PolitiFact. Then someone asked why one of those statements was rated "false" by PolitiFact. So, in fact, we have been discussing why Obama's statement about his health care plan was rated "false" by PolitiFact.

-Bri

Maybe you don't see it as related, Bri, but the connection followed the path as I stated. And you aren't saying anything different here.

 

[Bri]

Maybe you don't see it as related, Bri, but the connection followed the path as I stated. And you aren't saying anything different here.

If you say so. Nobody was discussing the Ryan plan but you.

-Bri

 

[Regnad Kcin]

- Deleted - due to others getting to my point first and not wanting to appear like I didn't read the whole thread first before commenting even though that's a bit of a Bachmannish thing to do which makes it accidentally clever anyway.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you say so. Nobody was discussing the Ryan plan but you.

-Bri

Of course not. That was background information about the statement you called a lie citing Politifact calling it an Obama lie. I didn't know you were uninformed as to the context of the statement you quoted. The background to this supposed Obama lie is specifically about the Ryan plan vs the Democratic plan and the problem of Medicare sustainability.

Obama says preventive care saves money. It doesn't.

Politifact doesn't get everything right. Nor do people in other fields always understand the research in fields unfamiliar to them. I have no doubt I could easily misunderstand a quantum mechanics research paper despite having excellent reading comprehension. In addition, I work in the medical field but my practice overlaps with the field of worker safety which is dominated by industrial hygienists. When worker safety laws were enacted regarding infectious disease hazards in the workplace, industrial hygienists in the OSHA and lawmakers wrote the laws using their experience in other workplace hazards. It was obvious from the many problems that resulted that they lacked some experience with medicine and applied principles that didn't fit.

I see the same thing in Politifact's choosing to use CBO reports and I don't blame them for their choice. But both the CBO and Politifact have it wrong.

CBO Scoring Needs Improving to Recognize Value of Preventive Care has a couple examples like not taking into consideration the effect a measure might have on changing people's behavior.

For example, screening tests are not the only preventive care out there. Teaching a patient to manage his/her diabetes better and programs that help people stop smoking are two examples of preventive care that don't involves a health screening test. From a medical perspective it's a no brainer. From someone not in the medical field like CBO employees, it apparently didn't dawn on them there's more to prevention than screening tests. Yes, Obama cited colonoscopies and mammograms as examples. But that doesn't mean Obama's examples represented the full claim. If they wanted to just address the specific examples Obama stated, then Politifact should have limited their analysis to those two examples only and said so.

I posted a link on the colonoscopies, here's one on the cost saving of mammograms: The cost per year of life saved is well within the range for other commonly accepted medical interventions. Various studies have estimated that reduction in treatment costs through early screening detection may be 30% to 100% or more of the cost of screening.

One of the goals of research would be to find better criteria for selection of appropriate screening tests. Such refinement eventually improves the cost benefit outcome of screening strategies. The CBO analysis was shortsighted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For example, screening tests are not the only preventive care out there. Teaching a patient to manage his/her diabetes better and programs that help people stop smoking are two examples of preventive care that don't involves a health screening test.

And let's not forget patient education about safe sex and distribution of condoms compared to the cost of HIV treatment!

Again, that difference is vast, and would offset a great many other preventive care measures that might not save much.

 

[Bri]

Of course not. That was background information about the statement you called a lie citing Politifact calling it an Obama lie. I didn't know you were uninformed as to the context of the statement you quoted. The background to this supposed Obama lie is specifically about the Ryan plan vs the Democratic plan and the problem of Medicare sustainability.

Obama says preventive care saves money. It doesn't.

Neither I or PolitiFact called Obama's statement a lie (PolitiFact rates it "false" but doesn't call it a lie). The statement in question was made by Obama in a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 9th, 2009. It had to do with his health care plan. It had nothing to do with the Ryan plan (which to my knowledge wasn't released until 2011). You posted the correct link to the article -- did you read it?

Politifact doesn't get everything right. Nor do people in other fields always understand the research in fields unfamiliar to them. I have no doubt I could easily misunderstand a quantum mechanics research paper despite having excellent reading comprehension.

I would certainly consider PolitiFact, the CBO's analysis, research from The New England Journal of Medicine based on a review of hundreds of studies, and research from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society to be compelling evidence. You are free to ignore or reject that evidence, of course.

One of the goals of research would be to find better criteria for selection of appropriate screening tests. Such refinement eventually improves the cost benefit outcome of screening strategies.

Sure, but as it stands only about 19% of preventive procedures save money. Currently, a widespread increase in preventive care would increase rather than lower monetary costs.

Again, there may be good reasons to increase spending on preventive care, but that wasn't the argument Obama made.

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Neither I or PolitiFact called Obama's statement a lie (PolitiFact rates it "false" but doesn't call it a lie).

I have no argument with that nitpik.

The statement in question was made by Obama in a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 9th, 2009. It had to do with his health care plan. It had nothing to do with the Ryan plan (which to my knowledge wasn't released until 2011). You posted the correct link to the article -- did you read it?

This nitpik is not relevant. No one cares. The Repubs and the Democrats are nonetheless arguing how to save Medicare, but the discussion here was about the error calling Obama's statement false. It was not false, and I have explained why multiple times now. You can continue to address this irrelevant issue or the issue we were discussing.

I would certainly consider PolitiFact, the CBO's analysis, research from The New England Journal of Medicine based on a review of hundreds of studies, and research from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society to be compelling evidence. You are free to ignore or reject that evidence, of course.

You can stick to your argument from authority if that suits you. Or you can actually address the points I made which you are ignoring.

Sure, but as it stands only about 19% of preventive procedures save money. Currently, a widespread increase in preventive care would increase rather than lower monetary costs.

One review looking at a limited aspect of cost benefit analysis of preventative care does not support your assertion. You are ignoring the reason your assertion is a fail. Suit yourself.

 

[leftysergeant]

Whatever. The exact merits of any of the other health plans don't matter when we are discussing what sort of harm the raving lunatic congresswoman would do to the country's health care if she got her inept hands on it.

That she wants to cut about 4.5 billion from Veterans' Affairs shows that she needs an enema to wash her eyes out. She just doesn't want to spend any government money, no matter how collected or allocated., on anybody's health care if it means raising taxes on the corporations who own her miserable hide.

 

[Bri]

This nitpik is not relevant. No one cares. The Repubs and the Democrats are nonetheless arguing how to save Medicare, but the discussion here was about the error calling Obama's statement false. It was not false, and I have explained why multiple times now. You can continue to address this irrelevant issue or the issue we were discussing.

Ironic. What you call "this irrelevant issue" is literally the question of what topic we've been discussing. I don't consider the topic of discussion to be a nitpick since you have apparently been discussing the Ryan plan and everybody else has been discussing Obama's statement about his health care plan.

The problem is that when it was pointed out to you more than once, instead of actually reading the article we were discussing you just "doubled down" and continued to insist that the article was about the Ryan plan.

Which reminds me of someone else who tends to "double down" rather than admitting a mistake...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephano...inks-john-quincy-adams-was-a-founding-father/

How's that for a re-rail?

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ironic. What you call "this irrelevant issue" is literally the question of what topic we've been discussing. I don't consider the topic of discussion to be a nitpick since you have apparently been discussing the Ryan plan and everybody else has been discussing Obama's statement about his health care plan.

The problem is that when it was pointed out to you more than once, instead of actually reading the article we were discussing you just "doubled down" and continued to insist that the article was about the Ryan plan.

Which reminds me of someone else who tends to "double down" rather than admitting a mistake...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephano...inks-john-quincy-adams-was-a-founding-father/

How's that for a re-rail?

-Bri

I have a broader concept of the subject. It isn't a different concept.

The essence is the issue of whether it was false to say preventive medicine saves money. You are arguing that my broader view of the background of this essence is somehow part of the essence. If the essence wasn't off topic, certainly arguing the breadth of the background aspect of the discussion is.

Sounds to me like it is easier for you to argue about the broader background than to address the essence, that of whether or not Medicare coverage of preventive medicine can save Medicare costs.

Evasion noted.

 

[Bri]

Sounds to me like it is easier for you to argue about the broader background than to address the essence, that of whether or not Medicare coverage of preventive medicine can save Medicare costs.

I'd be happy to discuss that, but it's not what we were discussing. Sure, preventive measures can save monetary costs if those measures concentrate on the 19% or so that actually do save money. In addition, more research needs to be done on improving preventive measures so that they are more efficient in terms of monetary costs and more effective in terms of prevention. Improvements in identification and targeting of more specific populations for preventive measures could also reduce costs. And as I've said all along, some preventive measures that don't save money are still worth the extra costs because they save lives.

-Bri

 

[Nova Land]

Neither I or PolitiFact called Obama's statement a lie ...

Really? Perhaps a review of of the post in which you presented that statement, and the posts leading up to it, would be helpful.

This digression started when AlBell posted:

Speaking of missing facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ference/2011/06/29/AGpQMPrH_blog.html?hpid=z2

Most of you lefty nit-pickers have no trouble supporting the current liar-in-office.

From a skeptical perspective, that is a poor post. It does not spell things out clearly. But it appears to be claiming that Obama lies frequently, even though it doesn't specify what those lies are.

Here's Magyar requesting that AlBell post clear examples of Obama's lies so we can examine them to see how well they support the claim:

... yes, please DO point out where the lies are in this...

Here's me, likewise asking AlBell to provide clear examples:

... I couldn't help notice you didn't provide any examples of what is to be found at the site you linked to.

And here's you in response to those requests:

Obama lies plenty:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/...

Here's you again:

Maybe AlBell didn't provide them because there are so many...

[long list]

I pointed out at the time that simply posting a naked link or a naked list is poor skeptical practice. I pointed out that this kind of post is unclear as to what is being claimed and as to what the evidence in support of the claim is. I think you would do well to read that post again:

And which, if any, of these do you consider significant?

I am not going to click on naked links. I am not going to wade through long lists to try to figure out what point someone is trying to make. If someone on a skeptical forum has a point worth making, they should make it. The failure to do so too often indicates there was not a point worth making.

In this case, if you or AlBell feels Barack Obama makes significant lies:

(a) quote the statement he made;
(b) explain briefly how this is contrary to the facts;
(c) provide a link to a primary source for the statement so the statement can be seen in context.

If someone has made a significant lie, those 3 things should be easy to do.

That is the same standard I would want to see upheld if someone were calling Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, or anyone else a frequent liar. If there are good examples, skeptics should provide the examples simply and clearly.

If you have good examples, it's not that hard. Which examples in the list you provided do you feel are worth the time to present in that fashion?

The claim you jumped in to defend was that Obama lies frequently. The list you posted was supposedly a list of Obama's lies. I referred specifically to lies in asking you to clarify which if any examples on the list you posted you felt were examples of significant lies.

At no point did you disagree that lies were what we were talking about. At no point did you say, Oh, by the way -- that list I posted? Well, even though I offered it as examples of how frequently Obama lies, some of the things on it aren't actually lies. My apologies, I cut and pasted a bit too quickly. Let me go back through and remove the examples which don't actually support the point AlBell and I were trying to make..

Now, 2 pages later, you say that the laundry list you provided of Obama's frequent lies was not intended to be a list of lies. Now, 2 pages later, you say that the item people selected from that list to examine (since you refused to select any item from the list which you thought was a good one) is not a good example of the point.

It was your responsibility to select relevant examples from the PolitiFact list which you felt were good evidence for the point you were trying to make. If you had taken the time to do that, we would not have gotten off on this digression. And you would not be telling us, 2 pages later, that the example from the list you provided to illustrate how frequently Obama lies is not actually an example of a lie at all.