4 ms·

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, rou

by 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.

humanrebar 13y ago
> Yet, does his failure to define or consistently use the term "free market" undermine his thesis? Yes, since one of his main points was that the free market failed in this case. Even allowing that he imprecisely described a distorted market pre-ACA, he clearly prefers a differently-distorted market post-ACA without much justification about why this time it will work out in the end. Anecdotal evidence about quoted premiums (not even considering out-of-pocket expenses going forward) is not convincing. > Historical background is often very useful in a policy essay. He cherry-picks his historical background then. A better background would discuss the employer-provided healthcare mess, the financial insolvency and increasing costs for Medicare and Medicaid, and the perverse incentives of related programs like Social Security Disability. Even if going into the Republican/Democrat history, it's a limited view. He left out more piecemeal initiatives like Medicare Part D, health insurance co-ops, and subsidized high-risk pools. So I disagree that the limited historical background the author provides is value-added. On the contrary, that talking point detracts from his thesis. > 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? You can sue an insurance company if it advertises one thing and then changes the deal after you sign up. People, the author included, are not keeping their plans and doctors. I was pointing out that this bait-and-switch will happen in either system, but companies can be held civilly liable for making bad promises. > So, again, what evidence is there that this problem will be more acute under the ACA? What evidence is there that it will be less acute? To me the convincing prima facia case is that ACA will at least be more of the same in this regard. > The fact that the author feels strongly about a certain political issue cannot be used to rebut his argument about that issue. I think you're missing my point. I actually thought the first half of the piece was interesting. But by the time I reached the end of the piece, it seemed to me that the beginning of the piece was just a roundabout setup to his final point about how ACA is great and cathartic to the author. > The author offers technical arguments concerning a matter of public policy. Some. But he also offer personal anecdotes about how he felt guilty that a family friend couldn't get insurance. And many of his arguments are appeals to fairness more than they are descriptions of incentives and outcomes. > He then states a political opinion which follows logically from those technical arguments. That's the thing. It's a political opinion, so it doesn't follow logically. Even his logic is suspect. There are matters of fact that aren't considered (employer-provided healthcare, healthcare costs for state governments, healthcare subsidies, price regulations, policies changing between states). There are arguments that aren't, strictly speaking, logical (association fallacies, false dichotomies, straw men). A logical conclusion would be more modest, technical, and have fewer exclamation points.

by jarrett 13y ago

humanrebar 13y ago

> Yet, does his failure to define or consistently use the term "free market" undermine his thesis? Yes, since one of his main points was that the free market failed in this case. Even allowing that he imprecisely described a distorted market pre-ACA, he clearly prefers a differently-distorted market post-ACA without much justification about why this time it will work out in the end. Anecdotal evidence about quoted premiums (not even considering out-of-pocket expenses going forward) is not convincing. > Historical background is often very useful in a policy essay. He cherry-picks his historical background then. A better background would discuss the employer-provided healthcare mess, the financial insolvency and increasing costs for Medicare and Medicaid, and the perverse incentives of related programs like Social Security Disability. Even if going into the Republican/Democrat history, it's a limited view. He left out more piecemeal initiatives like Medicare Part D, health insurance co-ops, and subsidized high-risk pools. So I disagree that the limited historical background the author provides is value-added. On the contrary, that talking point detracts from his thesis. > 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? You can sue an insurance company if it advertises one thing and then changes the deal after you sign up. People, the author included, are not keeping their plans and doctors. I was pointing out that this bait-and-switch will happen in either system, but companies can be held civilly liable for making bad promises. > So, again, what evidence is there that this problem will be more acute under the ACA? What evidence is there that it will be less acute? To me the convincing prima facia case is that ACA will at least be more of the same in this regard. > The fact that the author feels strongly about a certain political issue cannot be used to rebut his argument about that issue. I think you're missing my point. I actually thought the first half of the piece was interesting. But by the time I reached the end of the piece, it seemed to me that the beginning of the piece was just a roundabout setup to his final point about how ACA is great and cathartic to the author. > The author offers technical arguments concerning a matter of public policy. Some. But he also offer personal anecdotes about how he felt guilty that a family friend couldn't get insurance. And many of his arguments are appeals to fairness more than they are descriptions of incentives and outcomes. > He then states a political opinion which follows logically from those technical arguments. That's the thing. It's a political opinion, so it doesn't follow logically. Even his logic is suspect. There are matters of fact that aren't considered (employer-provided healthcare, healthcare costs for state governments, healthcare subsidies, price regulations, policies changing between states). There are arguments that aren't, strictly speaking, logical (association fallacies, false dichotomies, straw men). A logical conclusion would be more modest, technical, and have fewer exclamation points.