3 ms·

Thanks, I'll check it out. But I do recommend watching the whole presentation if you have the time -- especially before you start calling people "propaganda ar

by neilk 18y ago

Thanks, I'll check it out. But I do recommend watching the whole presentation if you have the time -- especially before you start calling people "propaganda artists". That implies deliberate deception and razzle-dazzle to con the unwary. If she's really trying to foment unrest among the working classes she's kind of doing it wrong, with a rather unfashionable pantsuit and a series of dull charts and graphs. I get the sense she honestly believes in her data, but perhaps she is simply honestly mistaken? Anyway, something to think about.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
I'm asserting that she does something along those lines. I'll take one example from her medical bankruptcy study. This is the study, widely described by the media as asserting that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills or serious medical problems. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DD133BF931A35751C0A9639C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DD133BF... You need to actually read the study rather than listen to her talks to discover that "medical problems" includes "alcohol or drug addiction" and "uncontrolled gambling." http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.w5.63 http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaf... This is far from the only example where she plays games of this nature. Read Todd Zywicki's debunkings of her, she seems to make mistakes like this all the time. I suspect that congress and the media, rather than the working classes, is her target.
- neilk 18y ago
  Your assertion was correct but vacuous. The study you and Warren cite does group alcoholism, drugs, and gambling under medical problems. But, even combined, they form just 3.7% of bankruptcies observed. Even if you threw these out, that wouldn't affect the main conclusions. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/imag... Now, I'm not saying that this study was flawless or Warren's use of it beyond criticism. But the criticism you made was indisputably worthless. It seems to be designed to inflame passions and exploit stereotypes in a few words, and to be difficult to refute without long explanation. You should go on FOX News. Or perhaps you did not read the study, as you advised me to do, but merely quoted someone else's critique? If so, I suggest that you re-evaluate your sources.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    Like I said, "I'll take one example". The study is utterly flawed even conceptually (1), but that flaw might just be a result of some law prof not understanding basic statistics. The example I provided is merely the simplest and most egregious misrepresentation she makes. (1) To estimate the number of bankruptcies caused by "medical reasons", you need to compare Pm = P(bankrupt | medical cause) to Pnm = P(bankrupt | no medical cause). The number of medically caused bankruptcies is then (Pm-Pnm) x (number of people with medical cause). She only measures Pm x (number of bankruptcies with medical cause).

by neilk 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago

I'm asserting that she does something along those lines. I'll take one example from her medical bankruptcy study. This is the study, widely described by the media as asserting that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills or serious medical problems. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DD133BF931A35751C0A9639C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DD133BF... You need to actually read the study rather than listen to her talks to discover that "medical problems" includes "alcohol or drug addiction" and "uncontrolled gambling." http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.w5.63 http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaf... This is far from the only example where she plays games of this nature. Read Todd Zywicki's debunkings of her, she seems to make mistakes like this all the time. I suspect that congress and the media, rather than the working classes, is her target.

neilk 18y ago
Your assertion was correct but vacuous. The study you and Warren cite does group alcoholism, drugs, and gambling under medical problems. But, even combined, they form just 3.7% of bankruptcies observed. Even if you threw these out, that wouldn't affect the main conclusions. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/images/data/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1/Himmelstein_Ex2.gif http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2005/imag... Now, I'm not saying that this study was flawless or Warren's use of it beyond criticism. But the criticism you made was indisputably worthless. It seems to be designed to inflame passions and exploit stereotypes in a few words, and to be difficult to refute without long explanation. You should go on FOX News. Or perhaps you did not read the study, as you advised me to do, but merely quoted someone else's critique? If so, I suggest that you re-evaluate your sources.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  Like I said, "I'll take one example". The study is utterly flawed even conceptually (1), but that flaw might just be a result of some law prof not understanding basic statistics. The example I provided is merely the simplest and most egregious misrepresentation she makes. (1) To estimate the number of bankruptcies caused by "medical reasons", you need to compare Pm = P(bankrupt | medical cause) to Pnm = P(bankrupt | no medical cause). The number of medically caused bankruptcies is then (Pm-Pnm) x (number of people with medical cause). She only measures Pm x (number of bankruptcies with medical cause).