4 ms·

Please do rebut. Based on the AstroTurf comment, hard to think you will be convincing at all.

by pbreit 13y ago

humanrebar 13y ago
A quick example is the obvious contradiction in the following quotes from the blog: > With healthcare, the free market has clearly failed. > Does this even qualify as a “free market”? I don’t think so. Later the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks, which are definitely relevant if you are trying to score political points instead of discussing healthcare policy. The closing section that glosses over the big problems with centralized planning systems (broken promises with no legal recourse, implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making) and finishes with enthusiastic exclamation points: > Now this is what a free market looks like! > Wow! > This is a time to be proud. It seems like political cheerleading to me, but maybe I'm missing something. To summarize this piece, it seems like this guy felt guilty for working at an insurance company, but now he feels better because the he politically supports the ACA, which he feels is going pretty well. Is there an apolitical thesis for this blog post that I'm missing? Why was it written if not to express a political position? EDIT: The Romney and think tank thing is clearly an association fallacy. I don't want to get into pointless political bickering, which is why I was hesitant to comment in the first place. I brought up that part of the article because it only serves this sort of tangent instead of furthering the (IMO much more interesting) discussion of healthcare costs, policy, and incentives.
- rm445 13y ago
  All opinions are political in some sense. However the author is a very well-known writer in the field of computer programming - as opposed to a political figure or someone of an unknown provenance. If you wish to dismiss his writing as fake grass roots rather than genuine, the burden of proof is on you.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Ah. I'm not familiar with the author. It may not be astroturf, but it reads like it. That's a rather unfortunate direction the author took, then. It finishes in a political argument, far from the interesting personal narrative about working in insurance that it initially seemed to be.
    - sanderjd 13y ago
      You may enjoy a book he wrote called CODE[0], which is one of my absolute favorites, but I doubt it will convince you to share his political opinions. 0: http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319 http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Softwa...
- jbooth 13y ago
  It was a breakdown of various ways the incredibly distorted healthcare market fails. The word 'free' is so politically overloaded that using it in multiple ways isn't a contradiction, although you could call it sloppy if you wanted. The post does make reference to politics, but it also has cogent argument about why market conditions lead to a downward spiral of gametheory when it comes to insurance and something you only have one of, like your body. So that's the thesis. I think he feels better because, as a free-lancer, he finally has the ability to shop for providers, instead of being locked into one because he's terrified about what 'pre-existing conditions' have come into existence since the last time he shopped.
- MisterBastahrd 13y ago
  Yes, because when discussing the history of healthcare in this country, Mitt Romney and conservative think tanks had nothing to do with the direction of policy. You can't rebut anything he's said, but you're obviously upset that he said it anyway.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    There are better explanations for why the American healthcare system was the way it was pre-ACA. This post links a much better examination of the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6992392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6992392
- pbreit 13y ago
  If you're going to dismiss most/every healthcare discussion for being political then I don't think we will get very far. The guy was apparently a healthcare actuary which gives him a lot more insight than most of us. And I think it's not too controversial that ACA had a lot in common with the Romney/heritage plans.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I'd be very interested in an article about problems and solutions in American healthcare from an actuarial perspective. I'm siginificantly less interested in reading apologetics about the ACA. The article started out like the former and ended up like the latter. It's not controversial that there are similarities between the ACA and Romney plans. Bringing it up serves no purpose outside of making political points, which was my point. I am very interested in discussing healthcare. I just don't think this article advances the discussion. Again, a well-written actuarial perspective would probably be more interesting.
    - jarrett 13y ago
      Are you arguing that the inclusion of political opinions negates the value of the author's actuarial discussions? If so, why would that be the case? If the author's statements about actuarial science are incorrect, why not just say so? Or is it that you don't trust the author, so you suspect the factual claims underlying his argument are false? If that's the case, then why not cite outside sources to demonstrate as much?
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        It's not about negating his points or trusting the author. I actually liked the piece. Until I reached the part of the article that started talking about how the free market failed. Characterizing the pre-ACA health insurance system as a free market is not a given and deserves much more discussion. I've already commented on the other issues I had with the end of the article, but at the end I felt that the real conclusion of the article (ACA! With exclamation points!) was at the end and that the points earlier served to support that conclusion. As far as facts go, I don't have much factual issue with the piece except for the reliance on anecdote and his errors in omission. As far as outside sources, the Atlantic article linked in these comments is good. I also like the coverage of the topic in the EconTalk podcast. For instance: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.htm...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- asveikau 13y ago
  > the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks Political or not, this historical description happens to be accurate. Obamacare is ultimately intellectually rooted in the Heritage Foundation's attempt to come up with an alternative to more liberal proposals. It is also the same ideas that made Romney a name to watch nationally in political circles circa 2007.
- jarrett 13y ago
  You said you were trying to offer a rebuttal. So I aim to show that the counterarguments presented do not rebut the author's main point. His main point is, roughly: 1) a variety of factors, including fear and antiselection, made for a broken health insurance market prior to the ACA, and 2) the ACA has substantially mitigated some of those problems. > A quick example is the obvious contradiction in the following quotes from the blog: The author is using the term in subtly different ways in different contexts. Not the best rhetoric, I admit. Yet, does his failure to define or consistently use the term "free market" undermine his thesis? I would venture not, but I'd be open to a counterargument. Otherwise this objection seems like just so much caviling. > Later the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks, which are definitely relevant if you are trying to score political points instead of discussing healthcare policy. The Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney both played significant roles in the history of healthcare in the US. Historical background is often very useful in a policy essay. That appears to be the reason the author mentioned them. You're free to disagree with the author's characterization of their roles. But you didn't. > The closing section that glosses over the big problems with centralized planning systems (broken promises with no legal recourse, implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making) and finishes with enthusiastic exclamation points: "Broken promises with no legal recourse" would be a pretty good characterization of pre-ACA health insurance, by the author's account. Why would you expect the ACA to be any worse in this regard? My experience has been that private companies very often fall victim to "implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making." I've seen symptoms of that malady in every private health insurance company with which I've dealt. So, again, what evidence is there that this problem will be more acute under the ACA? > It seems like political cheerleading to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Yes, I believe you did. The article included much substantive information about the inner workings of health insurance companies and the economic forces that drive their behaviors. Indeed, there is much more of this sort of thing than there is political cheerleading, the latter being confined to the final section. The presence of some political cheerleading does not indicate the absence of a valid argument. The fact that the author feels strongly about a certain political issue cannot be used to rebut his argument about that issue. > To summarize this piece, it seems like this guy felt guilty for working at an insurance company, but now he feels better because the he politically supports the ACA, which he feels is going pretty well. Is there an apolitical thesis for this blog post that I'm missing? Why was it written if not to express a political position? The author offers technical arguments concerning a matter of public policy. He then states a political opinion which follows logically from those technical arguments. There's nothing invalid about this pattern of reasoning or argumentation.

Please do rebut. Based on the AstroTurf comment, hard to think you will be convincing at all.

by pbreit 13y ago

Please do rebut. Based on the AstroTurf comment, hard to think you will be convincing at all.

A quick example is the obvious contradiction in the following quotes from the blog: > With healthcare, the free market has clearly failed. > Does this even qualify as a “free market”? I don’t think so. Later the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks, which are definitely relevant if you are trying to score political points instead of discussing healthcare policy. The closing section that glosses over the big problems with centralized planning systems (broken promises with no legal recourse, implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making) and finishes with enthusiastic exclamation points: > Now this is what a free market looks like! > Wow! > This is a time to be proud. It seems like political cheerleading to me, but maybe I'm missing something. To summarize this piece, it seems like this guy felt guilty for working at an insurance company, but now he feels better because the he politically supports the ACA, which he feels is going pretty well. Is there an apolitical thesis for this blog post that I'm missing? Why was it written if not to express a political position? EDIT: The Romney and think tank thing is clearly an association fallacy. I don't want to get into pointless political bickering, which is why I was hesitant to comment in the first place. I brought up that part of the article because it only serves this sort of tangent instead of furthering the (IMO much more interesting) discussion of healthcare costs, policy, and incentives.

rm445 13y ago
All opinions are political in some sense. However the author is a very well-known writer in the field of computer programming - as opposed to a political figure or someone of an unknown provenance. If you wish to dismiss his writing as fake grass roots rather than genuine, the burden of proof is on you.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Ah. I'm not familiar with the author. It may not be astroturf, but it reads like it. That's a rather unfortunate direction the author took, then. It finishes in a political argument, far from the interesting personal narrative about working in insurance that it initially seemed to be.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    You may enjoy a book he wrote called CODE[0], which is one of my absolute favorites, but I doubt it will convince you to share his political opinions. 0: http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319 http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Softwa...
jbooth 13y ago
It was a breakdown of various ways the incredibly distorted healthcare market fails. The word 'free' is so politically overloaded that using it in multiple ways isn't a contradiction, although you could call it sloppy if you wanted. The post does make reference to politics, but it also has cogent argument about why market conditions lead to a downward spiral of gametheory when it comes to insurance and something you only have one of, like your body. So that's the thesis. I think he feels better because, as a free-lancer, he finally has the ability to shop for providers, instead of being locked into one because he's terrified about what 'pre-existing conditions' have come into existence since the last time he shopped.
MisterBastahrd 13y ago
Yes, because when discussing the history of healthcare in this country, Mitt Romney and conservative think tanks had nothing to do with the direction of policy. You can't rebut anything he's said, but you're obviously upset that he said it anyway.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  There are better explanations for why the American healthcare system was the way it was pre-ACA. This post links a much better examination of the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6992392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6992392
pbreit 13y ago
If you're going to dismiss most/every healthcare discussion for being political then I don't think we will get very far. The guy was apparently a healthcare actuary which gives him a lot more insight than most of us. And I think it's not too controversial that ACA had a lot in common with the Romney/heritage plans.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I'd be very interested in an article about problems and solutions in American healthcare from an actuarial perspective. I'm siginificantly less interested in reading apologetics about the ACA. The article started out like the former and ended up like the latter. It's not controversial that there are similarities between the ACA and Romney plans. Bringing it up serves no purpose outside of making political points, which was my point. I am very interested in discussing healthcare. I just don't think this article advances the discussion. Again, a well-written actuarial perspective would probably be more interesting.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Are you arguing that the inclusion of political opinions negates the value of the author's actuarial discussions? If so, why would that be the case? If the author's statements about actuarial science are incorrect, why not just say so? Or is it that you don't trust the author, so you suspect the factual claims underlying his argument are false? If that's the case, then why not cite outside sources to demonstrate as much?
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      It's not about negating his points or trusting the author. I actually liked the piece. Until I reached the part of the article that started talking about how the free market failed. Characterizing the pre-ACA health insurance system as a free market is not a given and deserves much more discussion. I've already commented on the other issues I had with the end of the article, but at the end I felt that the real conclusion of the article (ACA! With exclamation points!) was at the end and that the points earlier served to support that conclusion. As far as facts go, I don't have much factual issue with the piece except for the reliance on anecdote and his errors in omission. As far as outside sources, the Atlantic article linked in these comments is good. I also like the coverage of the topic in the EconTalk podcast. For instance: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/cochrane_on_hea.htm...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
asveikau 13y ago
> the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks Political or not, this historical description happens to be accurate. Obamacare is ultimately intellectually rooted in the Heritage Foundation's attempt to come up with an alternative to more liberal proposals. It is also the same ideas that made Romney a name to watch nationally in political circles circa 2007.
jarrett 13y ago
You said you were trying to offer a rebuttal. So I aim to show that the counterarguments presented do not rebut the author's main point. His main point is, roughly: 1) a variety of factors, including fear and antiselection, made for a broken health insurance market prior to the ACA, and 2) the ACA has substantially mitigated some of those problems. > A quick example is the obvious contradiction in the following quotes from the blog: The author is using the term in subtly different ways in different contexts. Not the best rhetoric, I admit. Yet, does his failure to define or consistently use the term "free market" undermine his thesis? I would venture not, but I'd be open to a counterargument. Otherwise this objection seems like just so much caviling. > Later the post pulls out some talking points about Mitt Romney and some conservative think tanks, which are definitely relevant if you are trying to score political points instead of discussing healthcare policy. The Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney both played significant roles in the history of healthcare in the US. Historical background is often very useful in a policy essay. That appears to be the reason the author mentioned them. You're free to disagree with the author's characterization of their roles. But you didn't. > The closing section that glosses over the big problems with centralized planning systems (broken promises with no legal recourse, implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making) and finishes with enthusiastic exclamation points: "Broken promises with no legal recourse" would be a pretty good characterization of pre-ACA health insurance, by the author's account. Why would you expect the ACA to be any worse in this regard? My experience has been that private companies very often fall victim to "implementation issues caused by politics interfering with sound decision making." I've seen symptoms of that malady in every private health insurance company with which I've dealt. So, again, what evidence is there that this problem will be more acute under the ACA? > It seems like political cheerleading to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Yes, I believe you did. The article included much substantive information about the inner workings of health insurance companies and the economic forces that drive their behaviors. Indeed, there is much more of this sort of thing than there is political cheerleading, the latter being confined to the final section. The presence of some political cheerleading does not indicate the absence of a valid argument. The fact that the author feels strongly about a certain political issue cannot be used to rebut his argument about that issue. > To summarize this piece, it seems like this guy felt guilty for working at an insurance company, but now he feels better because the he politically supports the ACA, which he feels is going pretty well. Is there an apolitical thesis for this blog post that I'm missing? Why was it written if not to express a political position? The author offers technical arguments concerning a matter of public policy. He then states a political opinion which follows logically from those technical arguments. There's nothing invalid about this pattern of reasoning or argumentation.