No Brainer Indeed

Here's what passes for logic among the spending lobby and their MSM enablers. 

Society has a problem.  Therefore a government program must be established to address that problem.

The problem worsens.  Therefore the government program must be expanded. 

This is a classic logical fallacy of the Non Sequitur.

Check out this "quick hit" from the Republic's Linda Valdez.  She manages to work three logical fallacies into a mere 74 words.  See if you can spot them.

Congress is considering what to do about the president's veto of a health program for poor children. The New England Journal of Medicine is carrying news that our children receive appropriate medical care only 46 percent of the time. C'mon, Congress, this is a no-brainer. The SCHIP program is necessary. Kids need more, not less access, to health care. Override a president who earned his unpopularity the old-fashioned way: one point at a time.

I gave you the answer to the first one.  Kids don't get adequate health care, therefore the current government program must be expanded.  That's the non sequitur.

The second fallacy an ad hominem attack.  C'mon, Congress, this is a no-brainer. The speaker implies that those who don't believe her original fallacy are either ignorant or don't care for children. 

The final fallacy is the Appeal to Authority "The New England Journal of Medicine..."  Valdez implies that the NEJM either calls for, or at least bolsters her conclusion.  However, her fallacious appeal to authority is compounded because it's a false appeal.  This trick is especially common in the Mainstream Media.  Since they can't include links to their sources, they can claim that the source supports their position and assume that you are not going to do further research. 

The NEJM did indeed say that kids only get the appropriate medical care 46% of the time.  But the solution isn't the expansion of SCHIP. 

Here's what the Journal suggested.

These approaches include a systematic focus on patients with chronic conditions, the effective application of health information technology, an emphasis on patient-centered and family-centered care, organizational transparency and improved capability, and the more appropriate alignment of incentives coupled with the use of valid quality measures. Publicly financed insurers and health plans for children have given much less attention to quality than has Medicare — in large part because Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) are joint federal–state programs. Indeed, states have been highly reluctant to consider using common health care standards in the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. SCHIP is currently up for renewal; fortunately, some of the recent bills call for enhanced efforts toward quality of care in SCHIP and companion Medicaid programs.These proposals include the development of common measures; support for children's health care information technology; and execution of demonstration projects addressing obesity and the medical home. 

This concerted effort is necessary but not sufficient to address the broader context and role of children's health care and to address the most pressing challenges of diagnosis and treatment — such as for obesity, mental health, and disparities in access to care. Even more innovation is needed in new models of care and in the substantive redesign of the organization, human resources, finance, and delivery of health services underlying the children's health care system. Although these strategies extend far beyond the data in the article by Mangione-Smith et al., the data themselves may provide a clarion call for action

There you have it.  Faulty reasoning and outright manipulation from a paid professional in a newspaper that claims to be credible.  And all of it in a mere 74 words...no wonder J school takes four years. 

Comments

[John Kavanagh]

The real tragedy is that Valdez may actually think that "appropriate health care" means actual care versus no care. But the journal article is reporting that of all the kids who actually were treated by doctors, only 46% got the correct care.

Quote from the study: "On average, according to data in the medical records, children in the study received 46.5% ... of the indicated care. They received 67.6% ... of the indicated care for chronic medical conditions and 40.7% ... of the indicated preventive care."

The policy implication of this finding is not more money so we can have 54% of new kid patients getting bad care. The policy implication is that we better find out why so many doctors are giving bad care and why government and professional overseers aren't policing the profession properly.

Imagine the outcry if 54% of auto repairs were done improperly. Were that the case, would Valdez be calling for free auto repair insurance for the middle class so more cars could be messed up by incompetent mechanics or would she be calling for an army of consumer affairs agents to go after the incompetent mechanics?

[Dewey]

Well, maybe the first non sequitur is that people are reading the Republic :).

The second one is that people are supposed to care what Republic editorialists think. Seriously, why is Linda Valdez's opinion even closely as qualified as somebody's like, say... Greg Patterson's? Not to insult her personally (I don't read her or know anything about her background), but I really don't understand why newspapers continue to inflict editorial opinions, especially about non-local issues, on their readers. I can sit here at my computer and get all the opinions I need on any topic, across the political spectrum, from writers who are actually experts in whatever the given topic may be. Aren't newspaper editorials obviously archaic? But I digress.

What struck me as interesting was her phraseology:

"The New England Journal of Medicine is carrying news..."

Is carrying news? Why not "is reporting"? Maybe because she's trying to imply that they're giving their imprimatur to something they didn't actually write (your non sequitur #3). Maybe, maybe not, because I haven't seen the authors cited in either place. Just thought it was interesting.

[Dewey]

Okay, so I just went back and clicked on your link to the NEJM, and see that the article is apparently published as an editorial of their journal. So I retract my implication of nefarious intent on the part of the Republic (but ONLY in this case!) :)

But I still thought it was a strange of words...

[Guillermo R.]

Valdez also fails to point out that the expansion is to be shouldered by smokers through a $6 per carton tax increase. Set aside personal opinions of smokers for a moment. Where's the logic of basing funding on an annually decling source of revenue? Since the 1990's, smoking rates have dropped annually by 2% or more. What happens when the inevitable shorfall occurs?

[Sean Noble]

Since many readers of espressopundit likely do not read the Arizona Republic, I thought they might like to see a letter to the editor from Congressman Shadegg that ran in the Republic on Sunday. There are good reasons the President vetoed the bill.

Powerful facts about SCHIP
Oct. 14, 2007

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., is famous for saying, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

In a recent Arizona Republic article, I was quoted as saying that the Democrats' expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is "not directed at uninsured poor or near poor children" ("Health-plan veto panned," Oct. 4). The facts supporting this assertion, which I provided, did not appear in the story. They are:

• The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) report says that under the Democrats' new SCHIP bill, one out of every two newly eligible children who enroll will drop their current private insurance.

• Studies show 61 percent of children who initially became eligible for SCHIP already had insurance.

• The Democrats' bill allows states (e.g. New York) to enroll children whose families make $82,600 per year or more; neither poor nor near poor by any standard.

• Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its SCHIP money on adults, Minnesota, 61 percent. Adults remain eligible.

• While Arizona has now stopped doing so, it previously paid for 110,000 adults with SCHIP, 85,000 of whom were childless.

Thus, the Democrats' SCHIP expansion is not limited to uninsured poor nor near poor children. In fact, it's not even limited to children.

The article quoted my colleague, Arizona Congressman Harry Mitchell, as saying it was a "scare tactic" for me to claim the Democrats' expansion of SCHIP would cause some to drop their private insurance in favor of enrolling in SCHIP. Congressman Mitchell is entitled to his own opinion - he may favor government-provided health care for everyone - but he is not entitled to his own facts.

- John Shadegg, Washington, D.C.

[SonoranSam]

Alas, Rep. Shaddegg is subscribing to the "big lie" theory, along with most Republicans.

Schip DOES NOT cover families earning up to $82,600 a year. New York State sought authority to cover families up to a level that would include SOME families earning that much.

The Bush administration denied them a waiver, so SCHIP DOES NOT cover them.

Republicans stretch the truth by arguing that some future president MIGHT grant such a waiver. Then again, some future president might stop wasting trillions of dollars on a poorly executed war, so maybe by then SCHIP won't be such a big deal.

[Mark]

Well Sam is up to his old strawman tricks again. Shaddegg did not say that SCHIP covers families in NY making $82k a year. He said the Democrats' bill allows for it.

Hey Sam, how do you feel about the other "big lies":

• Wisconsin spends 75 percent of its SCHIP money on adults, Minnesota, 61 percent. Adults remain eligible.

• While Arizona has now stopped doing so, it previously paid for 110,000 adults with SCHIP, 85,000 of whom were childless.

Just admit it Sam. The big lie is that SCHIP is for poor children.

[BobH]

Sam: It looks like the only "big lie" is yours.

[SonoranSam]

Whenever I post, I can count on two things:

- That Mark will answer with personal attacks instead of keeping it cordial (Hey Mark: Ya forgot to call me a traitor).

- You guys will, to paraphrase a Nobel Laureate, ignore the inconvenient truths.

It always creates a dilemma. Do I get Mark all worked up, or do I let you guys wallow in delusions, with the expectation that 2008 is a-comin' and we'll see what happens then....

[BobH]

Good job of ignoring the point, Sam. Which is that you said Shadegg had told a "big lie" by saying that S-CHIP covered families to $82,600. That is not what Shadegg said.

Thus: You did what you accused Shadegg of doing.

And: You then followed it up by doing an ad hominem attack in which you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

Wouldn't it be simpler (and more honest) just to admit that you made an error?

[Travis]

As a sequent to the liberal penchant to use tobacco to pay for everything, in order to help the children, I will now start a giant habit of smoking - for the children...

[Ann]

I’m not as cranky today but…, but Sam and Mark tell us a story of a program that while well meaning is not what it should be. They have shown us, even if they do not realize it, that the SCHIP is full of inconsistencies and exceptions. Therefore, it should not be expanded without a full accounting of what it really holds, for the taxpayers AND those it is intended to serve. Anytime a set figure is used to establish either a cap or a minimum, it should be regionalized. The cost of living of New York compared to areas of the mid-west clarifies such need, if I am paying $1900 a month for rent versus $800 and my income is not comparatively greater, income range becomes a factor. However, such an understanding only signifies the need for careful attention and appreciation in order to be sure and protect the interests of all. I have an interest in SHCIP, as a taxpayer and a compassionate person who would never want to see children suffer for lack of something they cannot attain on their own.

Some of the talk about children on insurance being removed in order to receive benefits from SCHIP is very true. I know of teachers who have children and because health insurance is over $500 a month for a family they bring home about $1800 even if they make over $40,000 a year. The district pays for the employee share, so if the children are covered under SCHIP, the teacher nets nearly an additional $500 a month. That is a 27% increase in pay a month! Let's see....groceries or insurance..OR both!

There is a need for overall health care costs reform, but for now children need to be cared for. Expanding a program for the sake of expansion is never a good idea, particularly if there is evidence of exaggerated qualifications for use. The expansion needed to be stopped until an overhaul could be accomplished or at least a true inspection of the program was open to all and the fixes made where they need to be. And, most of all, we need to look at ways to prevent the government from becoming more of the provider of all things necessary for life with a return to self fulfillment.... I think it is called the pursuit of happiness.

[Ann]

Interesting article from the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/how_to_insure_kids_once_the_sh.html