3 ms·

> The experiment, made possible by an accident of budgeting, is the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, It, of course

by anm89 5y ago

> The experiment, made possible by an accident of budgeting, is the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, It, of course, does not prove this. It proves that within this specific set of circumstances, within the specifics of our current health care system, that increasing coverage lead to fewer deaths. You can't just automatically extrapolate that to health coverage in general.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
And there exists at least one field in Scotland in which there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black. Look, this was literally a randomized controlled study of the entire US population. You know, the gold standard for generalizability. And what other point of comparison would possibly be relevant besides "the specifics of our current health care system?" What more do you want?
- anm89 5y ago
  I'm not complaining about the study methodology. I'm just saying this isn't the right takeaway. Just because a study is randomized and has a good sample size doesn't automatically prove every hypothesis of the study. You have to actually look at what the data is saying and isn't saying. And nothing about this data says anything regarding some universal truth regarding the benefits of some universal thing called "health coverage".
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Well, let's see: * More people obtained health insurance after receiving the letters than those who didn't. * Among the people who received a letter, fewer people died than those who didn't. * Since we're agreed that the study was properly randomized, there were no other differences between the treatment and control populations. What conclusion are we to draw, if not that having health insurance prevents deaths? Literally the only differences are that the treatment group got a letter, more of them purchased this thing which then existed called "health insurance" than in the control group, and fewer people in the treatment group died over the course of the study. Are you going to sit there and tell me that people who were already less likely to die went out and bought the thing that at the time of the study was called "health insurance" just because they got a letter? That doesn't pass the smell test. Are you trying to tell me that health insurance is somehow different now than it was before? Also doesn't pass the smell test. I am at a loss for what you are actually trying to say. Could you please just say it, rather than being oblique to the point of opacity about it?

by anm89 5y ago

actually_a_dog 5y ago

And there exists at least one field in Scotland in which there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black. Look, this was literally a randomized controlled study of the entire US population. You know, the gold standard for generalizability. And what other point of comparison would possibly be relevant besides "the specifics of our current health care system?" What more do you want?

anm89 5y ago
I'm not complaining about the study methodology. I'm just saying this isn't the right takeaway. Just because a study is randomized and has a good sample size doesn't automatically prove every hypothesis of the study. You have to actually look at what the data is saying and isn't saying. And nothing about this data says anything regarding some universal truth regarding the benefits of some universal thing called "health coverage".
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Well, let's see: * More people obtained health insurance after receiving the letters than those who didn't. * Among the people who received a letter, fewer people died than those who didn't. * Since we're agreed that the study was properly randomized, there were no other differences between the treatment and control populations. What conclusion are we to draw, if not that having health insurance prevents deaths? Literally the only differences are that the treatment group got a letter, more of them purchased this thing which then existed called "health insurance" than in the control group, and fewer people in the treatment group died over the course of the study. Are you going to sit there and tell me that people who were already less likely to die went out and bought the thing that at the time of the study was called "health insurance" just because they got a letter? That doesn't pass the smell test. Are you trying to tell me that health insurance is somehow different now than it was before? Also doesn't pass the smell test. I am at a loss for what you are actually trying to say. Could you please just say it, rather than being oblique to the point of opacity about it?