3 ms·
Your assertion was correct but vacuous. The study you and Warren cite does group alcoholism, drugs, and gambling under medical problems. But, even combined, th
by 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 agoLike 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).