Dispelling the “Lies”

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams

We live in a post-Joe Wilson’s shout-out world, dear readers, and after the cries of the inappropriateness of the remark have faded, we can begin to analyze why Mr. Wilson was so frustrated.

Perhaps this frustration has to do with the nature of the frustration of citizens all over America – the citizens Pres. Obama did not speak about during his speech (how many primetime speeches does a President need to call in one session in order to get his point across?) – the “health care” protesters at the various townhalls.

Fastidious and I are among those who are frustrated, and have been for a while, and most of this frustration has arisen from the same thing Arlen Spector got “booed” for during his townhall with Kathleen Sebilius: the rash passing of legislation due to claims of “disastrous consequences” otherwise.

A Demonstration

Take President Obama’s speech.  After the laughing and the “You lie,” he demonstrates how the United States will be under dire consequences if we do not pass “reform.”

Around the 9:12 mark, Obama employs some effective scare tactics says:

1.Our deficit will grow.

2. More families will go bankrupt.

3. More businesses will close.

4.  More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most.  And more will die as a result.

5. We know these things to be true.

For this example, I will not worry about the lack of citation for these claims.  I can deal with them without any substantiation of numbers.  Claims 1-3 are in no way unique to this plan.  They may or may not happen as a result of an incalculable amount of factors, including more government spending.  Neither the passing of this bill or the rejection of this bill will directly result in those 3 claims happening or not happening.

On point 4, let us assume he is correct on the first sentence.  Could some Americans also gain coverage?  Was this loss of coverage (in the recent years) as a result of an economic situation brought on by government intervention in the private market – causing businesses to lay off workers and sometimes, close their doors?

I will claim, of course, that “coverage” does not “save lives.”  Medical care does not even “save lives.”  We all have a 100% guarantee of death.  But medical care can certainly prolong life, and it is not exclusive to those with “health insurance.”

But some might want to disagree: “If the above is correct, medical care insurance does ’save lives.’”  Fine, but then you will have to accept that $$$ saves lives.  And as I mentioned in my last post, The Irrelevance of Statistics, $$$ has alternative uses.  These alternative uses might lead to a higher GDP (through lesser regulation) that will, in turn, increase the quality of life.  If we can attempt to calculate the amount of people who will die as a result of “losing their coverage,” can we also study the amount of people who would be “saved” by an increase in the quality of life?

As for #5., assuming these claims are true, what is the point?  (“So what,” an old professor of mine used to say.)  Where is the major premise upon which to complete the syllogism?  How did you arrive at “This bill must be passed”?

In any event, what I’ve just demonstrated is what statistics do for us – they validate our conclusions.  But notice, both the claim and the warrant are necessary for a proper evaluation of the conclusion.  Additionally, citations for any statistics help to relay the credibility of the author and the validity of the claims being made.

So these two reasons are why I attempt to substantiate my claims.

Yet, I have been rewarded by my efforts by being ignored.  So let me revise my strategy yet again: I’ll adopt the slogan given to us by Madville Times, South Dacola, and Flying Tomato Farms – Stop the B.S.

I take stopping the B.S. to mean:  “tell the truth” or “speak without unsubstantiated claims and political rhetoric.”

Leaving aside for the moment this contemporary use of the term “rhetoric,” the risk of including “political rhetoric” is in adopting assumptions implicit in that rhetoric.  Those assumptions may be questionable, at best, or false, at worst. So I would urge, in taking the slogan “Quit the B.S.” for those of using engaging in this debate to question the assumptions laden within the premises of the argument.

Now, armed with the sting of self-reflection, let us attempt to quit the B.S.

South Dacola

While South Dacola thought it was alright to include “trackbacks” from this website here and here, there is no “trackback” from my post on “The Irrelevance of Statistics.”  Further, he has issued no response to the post.  Although, this is not to say that South Dacola has eliminated all evidence of “The Irrelevance of Statistics” – he allowed my comment forwarding his readers back here.

Usually, I would not take issue with being ignored.  Yet, during his comment on my original post, he exclaimed:

Yeah, we pay twice as much as other industrialized nations and rate 35th. Even Cuba who pays their doctors $30 a month has a less infant mortality rate then us. Keep spreading the bullsh*t, and you teabaggers will get your way. Thank goodness there is no Hell, because they would reserve a special room for you. [Emphasis mine]

I was unaware of any B.S., and as such, I posted a 6,320 word analysis of the issue as a response.  And so far, South Dacola has nothing to say about it.

Flying Tomato Farms

The title to this piece is “Quit the Bullsh*t–Public Option Now!“  I should say first that I am unfamiliar with this author, found her blog via Madville Times, and I have only just begun to read the site.  (As an aside, I must say that most every other post looks delicious.)

I have no problem whatsoever with this author’s justification for wanting “reform,” or at least with her personal narrative as a justification.  But “reform” is not necessarily the “public option,” and the ills she cites could be dealt with without the “public option.” There are, contrary to many who exclaim otherwise, many alternatives on how to approach the topic of “reform.”

From the post:

I call bullsh*t.

We’re all working incredibly hard–look at the statistics.  We’re working hard for our employers; we’re working hard for ourselves and our families.  And if you’re constantly looking around for some example person or group to pick on for not working hard enough–then maybe you’ve got a little too much time on your hands.

I do not have any problem, again, with a good, old-fashioned compliment to the working class.  My only complaint is for the claim “look at the statistics.”  There are not any statistics provided on this page.  This is a critique that will really only apply to the author if she is calling “B.S.” on those who are opposed to the public option.

Another thought, if she’s calling B.S. on shady practices by insurance companies, then I’m fine with that.  I’m entirely against shady practices, illegal practices, contract violations and other atrocities that occur by the insurance companies, no matter what their motives may or may not be.  (I don’t care, however, about their greed.)

Madville Times

In linking to the piece above from Flying Tomato Farms, MT writes this:

I won’t get my wish, but I’ll wish it anyway: I wish President Obama would take the podium tonight, kick over the teleprompters, and quote Rebecca Terk’s fine headline:

Quit the Bullsh*t—Public Option Now! Six words, Mr. President. The first three capture perfectly the nature of the obfuscations and outright lies spread by those who prefer the status quo’s corporate profits and needless deaths to effective health insurance reform. The last three capture perfectly the simple and necessary element of the plan: a public insurance option that sets the standard for affordable, universal coverage that can’t be taken away from any citizen.

While Flying Tomato Farms only slightly touched on B.S. by those who didn’t agree or want the public option, MT goes right for our throats (“status quo’s corporate profits” and “needless deaths”?  I refer you to my wife’s bit about the “status quo”).

Further, under the comment section for “The Speed of Stupid?: Fastidious” post over at South Dacola, MT joins the commenters with this:

On the issues, have Fastidious (and everyone else you know) watch the latest Bill Moyers broadcast on America’s inferior health care system:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/watch.html

Among the details:

“We’re something like the… We’re not the best health care system in the world in infant mortality rates. We’re like number 23. There is an index that is used in rating health care systems, which is the rate of mortality that could have been prevented by health care. There are at least a dozen countries with lower rates of preventable mortalities than the United States and not one of those countries spends 60 percent of what we do on health care.”

MT: you don’t have to speak as if I’m not in the room.  That post was about me – of course I’ll be around for all of the hate spewing that some commentators were engaging in – all the while accusing me of the most ridiculous things.  (MT is exempt from this, though.  He wrote reasonably and without the silly ad hominems.)  As a quick FYI: our email address is cosbysweater08@gmail.com, our website is www.fastidious.wordpress.com, and you can comment on any post your heart so desires.

Still, Moyers:  where did you find this?  Any of it?  I’ll again have to do my own digging.

On the Moyer website:

DR. DONALD BERWICK: It is, I guess, politically correct, widely believed, that to say that American health care is the best in the world. It’s not. There’s a much more complicated story there. For some kinds of care my colleague Brent James calls it rescue care. Yes, we’re the best in the world. If you need very complex cardiac surgery or very advanced chemotherapy for your cancer or some audacious intervention with organ transplantation, you’re pretty lucky to be in America.

You’ll get it faster and you’ll probably get it better than in at least most other countries. Rescue care we’re great. But most health care isn’t that. Most health care is getting people with diabetes through their illness over years or controlling the pain of someone with arthritis or just answering a question for someone who is worried or preventing them from getting into trouble in the first place. And on those scores: Chronic disease care, community-based care, primary care, preventive care. No no, we’re no where near the best. And it’s reflected in our outcomes.

We’re something like the… We’re not the best health care system in the world in infant mortality rates. We’re like number 23. There is an index that is used in rating health care systems, which is the rate of mortality that could have been prevented by health care. There are at least a dozen countries with lower rates of preventable mortalities than the United States and not one of those countries spends 60 percent of what we do on health care.

To whom it may concern (in language MT should understand absolutely):  “He who asserts must prove.”  This is known as the burden of proof.

I understood this maxim when I was challenged by South Dacola, and he was right in pushing me into substantiating my claims.  So I wrote 6,320 words.  I even went so far as to examine the “statistics” he presented, though he did so without citation or accuracy.

But this is universal.  And we are all accountable for the veracity of our claims, in order to convince our audience.  I could go chase down the claims and dispel them.  But this isn’t my task.  It’s Dr. Donald Berwick’s.  No citations, no references, and not even concrete “statistics” are available in that quotation.

If you want to “engage in the health care debate” with “civility” and stop the B.S., then start writing as though the rules of logic apply to you.  Without those rules of logic, those who are crying B.S. tend to be writing just that – B.S. This includes our President, who may give us speeches laden with (uncited) statistics, but has yet to give you the claim to fill in the whole argument. All we get is the conclusion – Reform Now.

Cosbysweater

Further, I advise that radical terrorism must be destroyed.