[Note: This blog author offers apologies that this review is a little out of order date-wise, it is a PolitiFact fact-check from June.]
According to Wikipedia **The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done — an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.**
PolitiFact has fact-checked various versions of this topic many times, starting with their "2009 Lie of the Year," Sarah Palin's death panels, as well as on others who are not as much in the public eye as Sarah. This topic has also been covered by FactCheck. This particular one was from a video on a website for a candidate by the name of Dan Fanelli who is running against Florida congressman Alan Grayson.
So here’s Bryan’s slippery slope argument about the IPAB and the PolitiFact (PF) piece:
“Suppose the IPAB decides that it will not grant the OK for treatment on persons with low life expectancy. Would that be a form of rationing? Suppose that Congress does not act on the proposal. The policy would become a potentially illegal law. What happens then?
On the other hand, suppose that Congress conscientiously keeps the IPAB from implementing any law that creates any form of rationing. What laws could the IPAB concoct that would fill that bill?”
So, Bryan has given us two contingencies, which are A: Suppose the IPAB decides it will not grant the OK for treatment on persons with low life expectancy, which he calls a form of rationing, which leads to B, congress not acting on it, and so C, it therefore becomes *illegal* law….and an alternate contingency A: Congress prevents IPAB from rationing leads to B, the IPAB concocting something to fill that bill, i.e., I’m guessing that is, C, as he stated in the following paragraph “limiting payments to providers” which would be a disincentive to provide healthcare...which would be much like the covert rationing we have now. Currently American rationing consists of your age (under 65), employment status and ability to pay (which appears to be OK by Bryan, I recall he liked to haggle over the resulting total estimated U.S. death count on PF’s Facebook page).
Well suppose that the Republicans got rid of the IPAB in 2011 by repealing the whole Obamacare package? Or suppose one of those state law suits made it to the still-right-sided SCOTUS, and they over-turned the law? These are just examples, and I don't claim to be a "believer" in them; I just think that they may be a more relevant scenarios for Bryan’s slippery slope…though one can make many, many speculations.
**Of course liberals/progressives will complain that Krugman is being taken out of context and that the "death panels" in this discussion are nothing like those Sarah Palin envisioned months ago.**
Except for the fact that Krugman didn’t say it was taken out of context, he just said it was a “complete fabrication.”
So one more time, it boils down to perspective: Do you think that Amy Sherman’s finding a number of experts who state that “nothing in the bill that would cut off treatment based on an age limit" holds more weight than Bryan’s claim that all this is, is the slippery slope to healthcare rationing, and it's *unconscionable* that she not discuss the IPAB? You know what I think.
| Title and Link | June 7: “Under the new health care law, the elderly will be denied care when they have "passed the age limit for treatment." |
| Who? Affiliation | Dan Fanelli, Republican running against Alan Grayson in Florida |
| Ruling | Pants on Fire |
| Checkers | Amy Sherman (Writer/Researcher); Sergio Bustos (Editor) |
| # of words | 1,335 |
| #Sources Cited | 12 (including 6 interviews) |
| Argument Summary | Fanelli could not provide any evidence or proof that the elderly will be denied care past a certain age. Experts interviewed said his statement had no basis in reality. Three of them said “there is nothing in the bill that would cut off treatment based on an age limit.” |
| Bryan’s Argument | Sherman fails to mention the impact of IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) that was created under Obamacare, and should have featured this in her argument. Fanelli should have done so too. |
| Quick Interpretation | Bryan has the slippery slope fallacy in his IPAB argument no matter how you look at it. |
| My criticism: | It also depends on your view of the IPAB. |
| Guidelines PF Excuses | (1) PF didn’t want (and shouldn't have) to go there (IPAB and rationing) based on length of their article and (2) Subjectivity: Agenda of Bryan’s charitable “slippery slope” interpretation |
| Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies | Lots! Strawman: Sherman ignores the IPAB, which is Fanelli’s *best argument.* Appeal to ignorance: Sherman’s finding of no evidence (of denial of care based on age) is not proof. Anecdote: Fanelli's pacemaker story. Slippery Slope: Bryan says, next thing you know, there’ll be denial of care based on age….omg, rationing! |
DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING? | Yes, to (at least) Mostly True. |
| My view | Geez at least Grayson can re-gurgitate all these dumb rankings--while Republicans have a guy running who can’t recall that the IPAB is the reason behind this commercial? |
| Comments | Meisenheimer, the doctor starring in Fanelli’s video, states in PF’s piece. "This isn't about 'death panels.' Death panels do not exist.” Republicans are working on getting rid of the IPAB anyway. |
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct) | “Under the new health care law, the elderly will be denied care when they have "passed the age limit for treatment." Part of “ObamaCare” is the formation of a panel called the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” or IPAB. The board is charged with “restraining expenditures”. So ultimately the board can recommend who is eligible for treatment which can become law….which greatly increases the possibility of *government rationing* of healthcare. So since this seems quite logical (although only conjecture), we rate Fanelli’s claim Mostly True. |
| Bryan’s Grade | Five Pepés, it was 4 until I saw that snarky tacked-on “unconscionable” comment. |
| PF Grade | Three Pepés. They could have touched on the IPAB as something Republicans like to claim as the basis of the rationing. |
No comments:
Post a Comment