Anecdotal evidence aka “confirmation bias or cherry picking fallacy”.
This is a debating and presentation trick used by so many. You see it when presidents point to individuals in the gallery to make a point.
I see it more in discussions in the form of an “informal fallacy” or “person who” fallacy (eg., “I know a person who…”; “I know of a case where…” etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.
You will be seeing these in upcoming discussions with friends and FB posts/memes as well as the news media try to convince you of a position and ignore the evidence. In debate, it’s emotion, sounds good, but is not scientific, logical or persuasive (except for those who already accept the premise).
In the upcoming weeks of discussions over universal health care, be prepared for these short-hand moves.
For example, you will need to punch through the personal and anecdotal stories to the facts and consequences.
You can expect to hear from the left individual horror stories of loss of care to justify the expansion, cost, and increases to the national debt.
And the right will respond that the ACA is in a death spiral, single or no plans available for large areas of the nation, the increasing costs are unsustainable, the deductibles and copays make the insurance non-existent.
Regardless of your current bias, be sure the reporting is trustworthy and not misleading.
My biases are pretty straightforward – insure those in poverty, disabled and elderly. Don’t shoulder the financial burden on our children.
But the rub are those who are able to work do not fit neatly into these categories. My assumption (although one I disagree with but must accept as political reality) is that some form of health insurance assistance is here to stay for those able to work but lack financial means or employment to provide that insurance for them and their families. With that said, then where do you draw the line for that support and how do you draw that line.
- Income/asset line below which you get financial assistance.
- Is that line and assistance gradual to the point that in/out.
- Assistance in the form of government insurance, health care facilities, tax savings/subsidies.
- Health insurance with minimal coverages that are critical and essential as opposed to the full bank of benefits that those paying full value get.
- Private insurance, government dictated coverages, no insurance choice.
- Time limits for the type of insurance received or aid given. Eg. off the plans after two years.
- Conditions for continuation of some benefits. Preexisting conditions requiring insurance purchased within a time period of notice of the condition (after a fresh start for all) and/or continuance of insurance coverage with no gaps greater than a certain period.
- Establishment of government run clinics (or gov’t paid) for rural areas that the insurance policies don’t work.
- How much control to be given to states to handle opioid crisis, clinics, and services by way of grants and/or even the income/asset lines for aid.
Lots of questions. And a lot more.
Our government failed us with the midnight cobbling of Obamacare in Sen. Reid’s office and arm twisting, with Cornhusker Kickback, with Louisiana Purchase, and an entire term refusing to tweak it’s design flaws. All of which has been brought to you by the Democratic Party.
Although the Republicans are more open to the passage than the Dems ever were. They are still sorely lacking in their legislative skills by refusing to allow input, no committee hearings to gather information, and little functional debate in the House. Now the Senate may not even bring their version to the floor for debate.
With health care insurance the defining national issue of our times, then we need open and honest debate, committee hearings, no filibustering, and joint support. But alas, hard to get all these when job one for man is to keep their job at the next election rather than lead.
For those people between the two extremes is another story for which little discussion and costs have been presented, and where do you draw the line from a little help to too much government payments.