…a large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”
This supports Angie Drobnic Holan’s conclusion in her recent PolitiFact ruling on an ad televised by Indiana Republican running for Senator Dan Coats about his opposition Brad Ellsworth : “The ad is capitalizing on confusion about the nature of the Medicare program and making a ridiculous claim.”
Coats makes sure that the mistaken belief found in the Kaiser Poll is perpetuated. And Bryan White is here to explain why it’s not a mistaken belief … and to keep the myth alive about death panels as well. Let's answer a few of the questions Bryan posed in his review:
Drobnic is trying to make it seem that Coats is claiming that the health care reform bill forces seniors to participate in Medicare. Is that a fair interpretation? And is it a "scary prospect" for those who want, for example, nationalized healthcare?
To put this in legal vernacular: Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence! While there are those who may want nationalized healthcare, it doesn’t follow that they would not be scared of Medicare. So, after reading the all-socialist-all-the-time Liberal mindset, he moves on to address the Conservative one:
When a plurality thinks a bill will make things worse, isn't it fair to refer to a bill as being "forced" on that demographic?
There’s that word fair again! I thought that was a blasphemy in the conservative vocabulary. Anyway, I would say NO. I would venture to say most people think taxes are too high and we spend too much on defense….so, are taxes and defense spending *forced* on them too? How far do we have to go? I believe Bryan is engaged in a version of “argumentum ad numerum.” He concludes seniors are being “forced” and “oppose” the bill because according to the polls he reads, the *majority* of the seniors think it would make things worse. The question the Gallup Poll asked was: “Would a new healthcare reform law improve, not change, or worsen medical care in the U.S.?” When 47% say it would improve or not change as compared to 42% who say it would make it worse, who is in the plurality? And that’s according to Bryan’s Gallup Poll. A more current poll says “Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June).” According to Bryan’s review, the 35% with the unfavorable opinion are the plurality…and the unfavorable opinion means they “oppose” it and feel it is forced on them…which makes Coats’ ad “reasonable.” I’d say Bryan is engaging in some pretty heavy-duty selection bias himself.
Then Bryan derides Drobnic’s description of Medicare as “already [being] a government-run healthcare program” as “marvelously simplistic.” Simplicity was what was called for; the basics of Medicare was all that was required and to go beyond that was well….in Bryan’s mind the devil was in the details, as changes were made to Medicare to contain costs. Can Bryan prove that Medicare today is not a government subsidized healthcare system for which one is eligible based on age—is that what it was back in 1965 or was it something different?
Bryan blasts Medicare in terms of the new healthcare reform, in order to force on his readers (that is, readers like me) another anti-government rant leading up to his favorite “slippery slope” of death panels.
Finally, noting his getting into strange analogies (read: Princess Bride) I am reminded of the Rodney King video and a *humorous* version of what the LA cops said upon viewing it: “Oh that’s not what it looks like…that’s not what it looks like…if you played the video in reverse, it looks like we’re helping him up and he’s walking away!”
Postscript: About that *new word* incrementalism Bryan threw in for good measure: According to Wikipedia: “Incrementalism in the study of rationality can be seen as a stealthy way to bring about radical changes that were not initially wanted: a slippery slope.” The Wikipedia piece also gave an ironic example of its usage: none other than the Sean Hannity Show, and around the same subject, healthcare reform:
Then Bryan derides Drobnic’s description of Medicare as “already [being] a government-run healthcare program” as “marvelously simplistic.” Simplicity was what was called for; the basics of Medicare was all that was required and to go beyond that was well….in Bryan’s mind the devil was in the details, as changes were made to Medicare to contain costs. Can Bryan prove that Medicare today is not a government subsidized healthcare system for which one is eligible based on age—is that what it was back in 1965 or was it something different?
 |
| Bryan as a boiling frog... |
Finally, noting his getting into strange analogies (read: Princess Bride) I am reminded of the Rodney King video and a *humorous* version of what the LA cops said upon viewing it: “Oh that’s not what it looks like…that’s not what it looks like…if you played the video in reverse, it looks like we’re helping him up and he’s walking away!”
Postscript: About that *new word* incrementalism Bryan threw in for good measure: According to Wikipedia: “Incrementalism in the study of rationality can be seen as a stealthy way to bring about radical changes that were not initially wanted: a slippery slope.” The Wikipedia piece also gave an ironic example of its usage: none other than the Sean Hannity Show, and around the same subject, healthcare reform:
On July 28, 2009, on the Fox News show Hannity, host Sean Hannity asked guest U.S. Senator John McCain if he thought that a possible agreement between majority Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats on health care reform was incrementalism, to which McCain answered that he thought it was.
A previous post of mine on the Republican party's drift into extremism is also a good example of this incrementalism.
| Title and Link | The health care law forces seniors into Barack Obama's government-run health care plan, says Dan Coats |
| Who? Affiliation | Dan Coats, Republican |
| Ruling | Pants on Fire! |
| Checkers | Angie Drobnic Holan, Writer/Researcher; Bill Adair, Editor |
| # of words | 1,025 |
| #Sources Cited | 11 |
| Argument Summary | An ad run by Dan Coates, Republican running for Indiana Senator against Brad Ellsworth, stated that “Ellsworth voted with Nancy Pelosi to force seniors into Barack Obama's government-run health care program, reducing the protection Medicare provides.” PF found that seniors are not "forced" into a government plan any more than they have been, and it is already a government-run health care program. |
| Bryan’s Argument | Bryan attacks Drobnic overall: ” A story built on uncharitable interpretation, distortion and omission makes for poor fact checking.” |
| Quick Interpretation | It doesn’t *force* seniors, it isn’t Barack Obama’s program, it’s technically not government run, it doesn’t really reduce the protections Medicare provides. |
| My criticism: | Piling on “absurd” and “ridiculous” and “nonsense” does not an argument make. |
| Guidelines | #1: PF got somewhat off topic while Bryan threw himself under the bus; #2 Total subjectivity on Bryan’s part |
| Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies | A form of “argumentum ad numerum” or “argumentum ad populum” was used to justify that healthcare reform was “forced on seniors.” Bryan also got off topic into the IPAB/death panel slippery slope argument again. |
| DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING? | Yes. |
| My view | Bryan’s bias corrupted his analysis, much more than usual. |
| Comments | Kaiser has a more recent poll on seniors (than the one Bryan provided from July, 2009) after the healthcare reform passed. |
| Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct) | An ad run by Dan Coates, Republican running for Indiana Senator against Brad Ellsworth, stated that “Ellsworth voted with Nancy Pelosi to force seniors into Barack Obama's government-run health care program, reducing the protection Medicare provides.” Not only are seniors forced into a program they do not want unless they are liberals, it IS Obamacare! And Medicare has changed, with greatly increased government control and the clear prospect of death panels. |
| Bryan’s Grade | Five Pepés: For turning this into a rant. |
| PF Grade | One Pepé: A little too much information in some of the explanations (which indirectly gave Bryan ammunition to rant). |
No comments:
Post a Comment