9 ms·

There are some interesting tidbits in the article, but it falls apart in the last paragraph when we see the true motive of the article: "Sadly, we are heading i

There are some interesting tidbits in the article, but it falls apart in the last paragraph when we see the true motive of the article: "Sadly, we are heading in the exact opposite direction. ObamaCare expands the role of the third party and practically eliminates the role—and the say—of the patient in the delivery of health care. Will they ever learn?" And then you see the writer's bumper at the end: "Dr. Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix, Ariz., and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute." So it's a Cato Institure article (Koch brothers) on the Wall Street Journal (News Corporation/Fox News/Murdoch) designed to end with an anti-'ObamaCare' message. How far the Wall Street Journal has fallen since Fox bought them in 2007.

bmmayer1 13y ago
So what? Is a medical surgeon not qualified to have an opinion on ObamaCare? Or are you suggesting he is not permitted to be against ObamaCare?
- jacobolus 13y ago
  You would be rightly skeptical of an athlete’s endorsement of a brand of shoes they are being paid to sponsor, even though a disinterested athlete would be well qualified to comment, as a professional. Similarly, in this case “paid for by the Koch brothers” is the most relevant part of his qualification here, not “surgeon”.
  - bmmayer1 13y ago
    Just because he is allied with the Koch brothers doesn't mean he's wrong.
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      But it does mean his facts are more likely to be wrong. Or lacking the full story and the other facts that disprove his point and are conveniently left out. Remember, the Cato Institute (Koch brothers) and News Corporation (Murdoch) are intentionally biased organizations that design studies and stories to make specific points that further their agenda. This anti-'ObamaCare' piece in the WSJ carries about as much weight as a pro-'ObamaCare' piece in a left-biased rag.
      - millstone 13y ago
        It carries no weight. The article casts aspersions on Obamacare, but does not give a single example of how Obamacare has or will affect this patient. We are told that this patient chose a low-cost health insurance policy due to his financial situation. He is exactly the sort of person who is likely to benefit from Obamacare when the subsidies kick in.
- amalag 13y ago
  I think the Wall Street Journal (because of NewsCorp/Fox/Murdoch) would not give space to a pro-ObamaCare message on its article.
- jrockway 13y ago
  People that disagree with me shouldn't be allowed to own a newspaper or write for one, especially if they disclose their affiliations at the bottom of the article.
baddox 13y ago
So you're fine with the ideas presented in the article, until you realize that the author is associated with groups that tend to share those ideas? I don't understand.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCare' piece, which fits right in with the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdoch's mission. Just as the facts and full story would be suspect in a pro-ObamaCare piece on MSNBC or Daily Kos.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments.
    - alanh 13y ago
      I knew I’d see this comment before I opened the HN discussion. Yes, it is fallacious to reject arguments to do the source. No, it is not unreasonable to use known facts about a speaker to weight the trust placed into their statements!
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    > That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox) The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.
gwright 13y ago
You seem to be suggesting that the only valid opinions on any topic are those that originate from a person without any bias but who is somehow intimately informed about the topic. Those people generally don't exist. The best we can hope for is some reasonable amount of transparency along with a variety of opinions.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  The best we can hope for is people attempting to take their personal bias out of reporting and investigate the full story, especially when what happened contradicts their worldview. Real journalists do this. News Corporation (Fox News/WSJ/etc) specifically does the opposite.
  - gwright 13y ago
    You are not being very observant if you think that Fox News, WSJ, etc. are the only media outlets that have a bias.
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      I don't think that and never claimed it. In fact, I've done the opposite if you look through this thread. But saying 'others post blatantly biased articles, too' doesn't excuse the fact that the Wall Street Journal is very obviously doing it here.
      - gwright 13y ago
        When you say real journalists take their personal biases out of their reporting and then immediately say that Fox News does the opposite, that certainly comes across as suggesting that Fox News doesn't do real journalism and that its competitors do. And I certainly didn't say "others post blatantly biased articles" so I don't know why you used quotes when you summarized (and distorted) my comment. Honestly, I think the term 'bias' is thrown around a bit too much and has a pejorative sense that shuts down discussion of the underlying ideas. Subjective vs. objective is probably a better way of characterizing news reports although I would argue that when you are talking about broad public policy it is pretty difficult to be 100% objective since everyone is affected by broad public policy.

bmmayer1 13y ago

So what? Is a medical surgeon not qualified to have an opinion on ObamaCare? Or are you suggesting he is not permitted to be against ObamaCare?

jacobolus 13y ago
You would be rightly skeptical of an athlete’s endorsement of a brand of shoes they are being paid to sponsor, even though a disinterested athlete would be well qualified to comment, as a professional. Similarly, in this case “paid for by the Koch brothers” is the most relevant part of his qualification here, not “surgeon”.
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  Just because he is allied with the Koch brothers doesn't mean he's wrong.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    But it does mean his facts are more likely to be wrong. Or lacking the full story and the other facts that disprove his point and are conveniently left out. Remember, the Cato Institute (Koch brothers) and News Corporation (Murdoch) are intentionally biased organizations that design studies and stories to make specific points that further their agenda. This anti-'ObamaCare' piece in the WSJ carries about as much weight as a pro-'ObamaCare' piece in a left-biased rag.
    - millstone 13y ago
      It carries no weight. The article casts aspersions on Obamacare, but does not give a single example of how Obamacare has or will affect this patient. We are told that this patient chose a low-cost health insurance policy due to his financial situation. He is exactly the sort of person who is likely to benefit from Obamacare when the subsidies kick in.
amalag 13y ago
I think the Wall Street Journal (because of NewsCorp/Fox/Murdoch) would not give space to a pro-ObamaCare message on its article.
jrockway 13y ago
People that disagree with me shouldn't be allowed to own a newspaper or write for one, especially if they disclose their affiliations at the bottom of the article.

baddox 13y ago

So you're fine with the ideas presented in the article, until you realize that the author is associated with groups that tend to share those ideas? I don't understand.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. His motivation is clear in that it was designed to be an anti-'ObamaCare' piece, which fits right in with the Wall Street Journal/Fox News/Murdoch's mission. Just as the facts and full story would be suspect in a pro-ObamaCare piece on MSNBC or Daily Kos.
- baddox 13y ago
  > His affiliation means his facts and actual investigation of the full story are suspect. That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments.
  - alanh 13y ago
    I knew I’d see this comment before I opened the HN discussion. Yes, it is fallacious to reject arguments to do the source. No, it is not unreasonable to use known facts about a speaker to weight the trust placed into their statements!
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  > That is one of the most blatant statements of a textbook fallacy I've seen in a while. The affiliations and motivations of the arguer do not affect the trueness of facts or the validity of arguments. (baddox) The affiliations and motivations of the arguer DO affect things when the "facts" he is using can't be independently verified or objectively measured. This especially applies when the arguer is speaking from personal experience, which is intimately colored by his prejudices. The arguer isn't looking to provide a balanced perspective on an issue, they're looking to prove their point through any means necessary. Including the invention of "facts", stretching of the truth, omission of facts which contradict their worldview, etc.

gwright 13y ago

You seem to be suggesting that the only valid opinions on any topic are those that originate from a person without any bias but who is somehow intimately informed about the topic. Those people generally don't exist. The best we can hope for is some reasonable amount of transparency along with a variety of opinions.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
The best we can hope for is people attempting to take their personal bias out of reporting and investigate the full story, especially when what happened contradicts their worldview. Real journalists do this. News Corporation (Fox News/WSJ/etc) specifically does the opposite.
- gwright 13y ago
  You are not being very observant if you think that Fox News, WSJ, etc. are the only media outlets that have a bias.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    I don't think that and never claimed it. In fact, I've done the opposite if you look through this thread. But saying 'others post blatantly biased articles, too' doesn't excuse the fact that the Wall Street Journal is very obviously doing it here.
    - gwright 13y ago
      When you say real journalists take their personal biases out of their reporting and then immediately say that Fox News does the opposite, that certainly comes across as suggesting that Fox News doesn't do real journalism and that its competitors do. And I certainly didn't say "others post blatantly biased articles" so I don't know why you used quotes when you summarized (and distorted) my comment. Honestly, I think the term 'bias' is thrown around a bit too much and has a pejorative sense that shuts down discussion of the underlying ideas. Subjective vs. objective is probably a better way of characterizing news reports although I would argue that when you are talking about broad public policy it is pretty difficult to be 100% objective since everyone is affected by broad public policy.