This is a follow-up to my earlier piece, Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers.
If, when reading the title, you thought it was a contradiction in terms, you'll see why I am uneasy relying on sites like Media Matters and News Busters. To me, they walk a thin line between reporting for the sake of truth and reporting for the sake of making 'the other guy' look bad.
Their focus on the mistakes means they start painting their opponent as lacking credibility when people on their own side are just as inaccurate. They seldom verify true claims, just the false ones.
I think there is some value in these sites. I've noticed their take downs can be very extensive, and I would not hesitate to link to one I found well done—as long as it is correct. I wouldn't advise subscribing to one without subscribing to an equivalent site that's politically opposite.
There is a group of agencies that work similarly. Organizations like GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) that advocate fairer representation for their members I consider separate from the partisan groups. They differ in that they report insensitive treatment rather than inaccurate information and they focus on entertainment more than news.
My view is that with reputable and high-quality sites like the ones in the original post, why bother with partisan fact-checkers? Even if the ones I recommended don't carry it, you can always, you know, do the research yourself. It's good practice and the kind citizens of a democracy need.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Here It Goes Again: Wesley J. Smith and Climate Change
This is mainly a response to Wesley J. Smith's article, Global Warming Hysteria: Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry and the article he quotes.
Wesley Smith in his blog Secondhand Smoke wrote that we have no reason to trust "global warming alarmists" because they have been wrong so often in the past. His argument comes from a Forbes op-ed written by a senior from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank.
There are five claims from the Forbes article Mr. Smith quotes and those will be the ones I focus on. My focus will be on the validity of these claims and to a lesser extent, his larger thesis. I won't be arguing against it per se, rather seeing whether his argument is valid. (That is, confirming that the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically.)
Heavy Snowfall: expected or not?
The section is from the second part of the report, the one that focuses on the impacts of climate change. It was hard to find more information to say over what time period they've expected snow. Keep in mind that many of the predictions are averages and pertain to the long-term global trend rather than a short-term regional trend.
Kilimanjaro and Himalayan Glaciers
On the other hand, there is actually a debate on the cause of Kilimanjaro's melting, with some scientists arguing it is at least partially caused by global warming and others saying its caused by something peculiar to the region. So it isn't a resolved area. Also, I haven't found anyone claiming it was due to global warming prior to when research suggested that was actually a reasonable idea—just a number of articles reassuring people it wasn't due to global warming.
Increased Temperatures
The Score
In a sense, the premises are mostly right: Himalyan Glaciers are really not going to melt that quickly and the IPCC projections were too high. Let's give him the Kilimanjaro one too, since scientists are on the fence. The problem is that Mr. Taylor is not only claiming scientists were wrong, but that these were claimed by 'alarmists' to be areas of 'settled science.'
There is a certain ambiguity here: who exactly is a 'global warming alarmist'? Are all scientists who support human-caused global warming alarmists? The people at the IPCC? Environmentalists? Politicians who favor stricter carbon emissions controls? Science journalists?
The ambiguity leaves Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor in danger of equivocation (changing the meaning of a word as you argue) and makes it hard to figure out who they're claiming once made assurances that the science was settled in the cases where turned out to not be settled at all. Looking at the scientists who originated the research, few (if any) seem to be as confident as Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor say they were. Also, the Himalayan mistake came from the IPCC and not the scientists the report typically draws from.
The Argument's Logic
It seems as though there's dubious logic here regardless of how the argument is interpreted. I see there being two cases how it could be interpreted:
There is another interpretation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor are merely saying popular advocates for the theory of climate change are wrong in the extent of some of their predictions. This is logical, but their quotes from scientists themselves suggest Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor feel the scientists are wrong as well (or want to make that implication). Also, it seems like they feel they've weakened theories of climate change implicating humans, a rather dubious proposition.
Unless I'm missing something significant, the argument fails to deliver. It is good to note here that when you post someone else's op-ed, make sure it's a good argument and not just one you agree with. I have no intent of proving it either way, only advancing the argument by eliminating weak arguments.
Oh, feel free to submit other claims for me to verify—I want to look at claims you find dubious.
Wesley Smith in his blog Secondhand Smoke wrote that we have no reason to trust "global warming alarmists" because they have been wrong so often in the past. His argument comes from a Forbes op-ed written by a senior from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank.
There are five claims from the Forbes article Mr. Smith quotes and those will be the ones I focus on. My focus will be on the validity of these claims and to a lesser extent, his larger thesis. I won't be arguing against it per se, rather seeing whether his argument is valid. (That is, confirming that the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically.)
Heavy Snowfall: expected or not?
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was…straightforward… “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported. That was in 2001. Now, however, with an unprecedented number of major winter snowstorms hitting the northeastern U.S. during the past two winters, the alarmists are clamming up and changing their tune…Mr. Taylor's claim is a relatively popular one and requires a trip to the Third Assessment Report in order to verify the context; you will note no timescale is reported.
The section is from the second part of the report, the one that focuses on the impacts of climate change. It was hard to find more information to say over what time period they've expected snow. Keep in mind that many of the predictions are averages and pertain to the long-term global trend rather than a short-term regional trend.
Kilimanjaro and Himalayan Glaciers
The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion.The glacier incident Mr. Taylor reports is true. We should be careful to avoid assuming the entire report is as errant as the chapter or section the error appeared in, but certainly this is a red flag that the entire report needs more scrutiny.
On the other hand, there is actually a debate on the cause of Kilimanjaro's melting, with some scientists arguing it is at least partially caused by global warming and others saying its caused by something peculiar to the region. So it isn't a resolved area. Also, I haven't found anyone claiming it was due to global warming prior to when research suggested that was actually a reasonable idea—just a number of articles reassuring people it wasn't due to global warming.
Increased Temperatures
IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.Mr. Taylor says this is an example of claimed "settled science" but the report doesn't report it too confidently, because it cites a margin of error for per decade warming, 0.2-0.5 and notes other scenarios which show more modest warming. It is true the IPCC claimed that and were wrong, but their claim was not given in complete confidence, and indeed the organization writes that a number of factors are "partially understood." So it is correct to say the IPCC's projection is wrong, but incorrect to say they considered it 'settled science.'
The Score
In a sense, the premises are mostly right: Himalyan Glaciers are really not going to melt that quickly and the IPCC projections were too high. Let's give him the Kilimanjaro one too, since scientists are on the fence. The problem is that Mr. Taylor is not only claiming scientists were wrong, but that these were claimed by 'alarmists' to be areas of 'settled science.'
There is a certain ambiguity here: who exactly is a 'global warming alarmist'? Are all scientists who support human-caused global warming alarmists? The people at the IPCC? Environmentalists? Politicians who favor stricter carbon emissions controls? Science journalists?
The ambiguity leaves Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor in danger of equivocation (changing the meaning of a word as you argue) and makes it hard to figure out who they're claiming once made assurances that the science was settled in the cases where turned out to not be settled at all. Looking at the scientists who originated the research, few (if any) seem to be as confident as Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor say they were. Also, the Himalayan mistake came from the IPCC and not the scientists the report typically draws from.
The Argument's Logic
It seems as though there's dubious logic here regardless of how the argument is interpreted. I see there being two cases how it could be interpreted:
- Scientists were the ones claiming these facts were 'settled.' This follows logically, but isn't true.
- Non-scientists were the ones claiming these facts were 'settled.' This is true, but logically invalid: wrong statements from non-scientists don't invalidate science.
There is another interpretation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor are merely saying popular advocates for the theory of climate change are wrong in the extent of some of their predictions. This is logical, but their quotes from scientists themselves suggest Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor feel the scientists are wrong as well (or want to make that implication). Also, it seems like they feel they've weakened theories of climate change implicating humans, a rather dubious proposition.
Unless I'm missing something significant, the argument fails to deliver. It is good to note here that when you post someone else's op-ed, make sure it's a good argument and not just one you agree with. I have no intent of proving it either way, only advancing the argument by eliminating weak arguments.
Oh, feel free to submit other claims for me to verify—I want to look at claims you find dubious.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Useful Extensions
Now, your web browser can't think, write, or research for you, so none of these extensions can help you with those things. At least not directly. I consider these useful extensions for the "frequent commenter"–some one who posts frequently and maybe does some research (imagine that!). I've limited these to extensions I use personally so browser rss readers or blogging extensions are out because I don't use those (I use a standalone program for feeds and Blogger's built-in post composer). Enough of all that. Here are the utilities:
Lazarus
I just found out about this, and it's definitely promising. I'm sure we've all hit 'back' by mistake when we were composing a post and have lost what they were writing. Lazarus solves this problem by saving everything* entered into textboxes and allows you to recover them later. Available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.
*With certain limitations on Chrome (see their FAQ).
Resurrect Pages (aka Arantius)
Gives you the option, when faced with a "this page cannot be displayed" message, to 'resurrect' a page. That is, grab a page from a cache. Lets you select from seven caching or mirroring services, but I find Google and the Internet Archive are the only ones you need. If they don't have it, then, typically, none of them will. Available for Firefox only, unfortunately.
Readability
Distracted by ads, sidebars, and other peripheral 'content'? Readability is the solution. A click turns the page you're viewing into a reading-centric experience. The creators turned to turn their simple extension into a fuller experience that allows readers to compensate content creators, but it requires a subscription fee. The basic extension is still available for free here. Safari users have the 'reader' function built-in that does much the same thing.
These extensions are all polished and functional, so I suggest checking out their creator's other offerings. And if you find them particularly useful—donate!
Lazarus
I just found out about this, and it's definitely promising. I'm sure we've all hit 'back' by mistake when we were composing a post and have lost what they were writing. Lazarus solves this problem by saving everything* entered into textboxes and allows you to recover them later. Available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.
*With certain limitations on Chrome (see their FAQ).
Resurrect Pages (aka Arantius)
Gives you the option, when faced with a "this page cannot be displayed" message, to 'resurrect' a page. That is, grab a page from a cache. Lets you select from seven caching or mirroring services, but I find Google and the Internet Archive are the only ones you need. If they don't have it, then, typically, none of them will. Available for Firefox only, unfortunately.
Readability
Distracted by ads, sidebars, and other peripheral 'content'? Readability is the solution. A click turns the page you're viewing into a reading-centric experience. The creators turned to turn their simple extension into a fuller experience that allows readers to compensate content creators, but it requires a subscription fee. The basic extension is still available for free here. Safari users have the 'reader' function built-in that does much the same thing.
These extensions are all polished and functional, so I suggest checking out their creator's other offerings. And if you find them particularly useful—donate!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers
I debunk/fact-check claims here, but of course I am one of many such sites. In another post (or series of posts, most likely) I will shed some light on the sources I use to check/debunk claims.
General
One of the best known is Snopes, which focuses primarily on the myriad claims that are forwarded from inbox to inbox. Most of the claims tend toward the ridiculous/trivial (as you might expect, given the ridiculous trash that people forward), but some appear in serious conversation. One disadvantage is that Snopes doesn't detail how they determined a claim's truthfulness, but that is a minor problem.
Politics
Focusing around individual claims, Politifact, provides the necessary context to verify claims made by pundits, politicians, and the public. Features the memorable 'Truth-o-meter,' which ranges from 'true' to 'pants on fire' (complete with animated flames). The site also looks at President Obama's promises at the Obamameter and the GOP's promises at the GOP Pledge-O-Meter. A Pulitzer prize winner in 2009.
One of my favorites is FactCheck.org, which offers a well-written and thorough analysis of claims made re politics. It doesn't have anything as easily remembered as the 'Truth-o-meter,' perhaps, but is very reliable and thoroughly non-partisan.
Pseudoscience
For debunking medical myths and snake-oil salesmen, look no further than Quackwatch.org. Written by a medical doctor, the site has won several awards and has been recognized by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health. Along with (sourced!) take-downs of unscientific "medicine," the site features information on how to find legitimate healthcare.
When compared to medicine, astronomy may not seem to have much pseudoscience, but you'd be surprised. From astrology to 2012 "planetary alignment" myths, Phil Plait has his work cut out for him. You can see his ongoing efforts at Bad Astronomy. The site includes an index of claims and his blog.
A quick note on 'non-partisan'
All the sites above, as far as I can tell, are non-partisan and aren't out to push propaganda for either side. Also, they typically 'show their work,' so you can read the same studies and reports that they looked at to make their determination. None of the allegations of bias I've seen hold up to scrutiny.
All of these sites come as highly recommended from me, but I suggest that you look at them with a critical eye, holding them accountable even as they hold others accountable.
General
One of the best known is Snopes, which focuses primarily on the myriad claims that are forwarded from inbox to inbox. Most of the claims tend toward the ridiculous/trivial (as you might expect, given the ridiculous trash that people forward), but some appear in serious conversation. One disadvantage is that Snopes doesn't detail how they determined a claim's truthfulness, but that is a minor problem.
Politics
Focusing around individual claims, Politifact, provides the necessary context to verify claims made by pundits, politicians, and the public. Features the memorable 'Truth-o-meter,' which ranges from 'true' to 'pants on fire' (complete with animated flames). The site also looks at President Obama's promises at the Obamameter and the GOP's promises at the GOP Pledge-O-Meter. A Pulitzer prize winner in 2009.
One of my favorites is FactCheck.org, which offers a well-written and thorough analysis of claims made re politics. It doesn't have anything as easily remembered as the 'Truth-o-meter,' perhaps, but is very reliable and thoroughly non-partisan.
Pseudoscience
For debunking medical myths and snake-oil salesmen, look no further than Quackwatch.org. Written by a medical doctor, the site has won several awards and has been recognized by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health. Along with (sourced!) take-downs of unscientific "medicine," the site features information on how to find legitimate healthcare.
When compared to medicine, astronomy may not seem to have much pseudoscience, but you'd be surprised. From astrology to 2012 "planetary alignment" myths, Phil Plait has his work cut out for him. You can see his ongoing efforts at Bad Astronomy. The site includes an index of claims and his blog.
A quick note on 'non-partisan'
All the sites above, as far as I can tell, are non-partisan and aren't out to push propaganda for either side. Also, they typically 'show their work,' so you can read the same studies and reports that they looked at to make their determination. None of the allegations of bias I've seen hold up to scrutiny.
All of these sites come as highly recommended from me, but I suggest that you look at them with a critical eye, holding them accountable even as they hold others accountable.
Why I haven't posted in a while
I haven't posted a lot recently. In fact, I haven't posted anything since Jan. 17, a regrettably long time. Part of this comes from the fact I've temporarily halted my fact-checking posts. I've found myself less inclined to debunk and I'm not sure the way I've been doing it has been good netiquette.
Usually I do some research, write it up, and re-read the article to make sure I've addressed the claim fairly. Then I revise my post, publish it, and summarize my post as a comment with a link to the specific post on my blog. Almost all of those steps I'm good with. The last part of the last step, I'm not sure about. Posting on other people's blogs with a link to your own blog is starting to strike me as tacky. Still, I still want to debunk in a full post (rather than a comment). It's a quandary and to resolve it I will look the general attitude towards this practice.
I do have a lot of content 'in the pipeline' as it is. I've been doing plenty of writing on critical thinking and critical thinking resources, so expect those to come your way soon. Part of the reason you haven't seen any of that is because my inner perfectionist has made an appearance and I don't want to publish them without editing them...again...and again. I'm breaking that tonight, with a post I think you'll find useful.
Usually I do some research, write it up, and re-read the article to make sure I've addressed the claim fairly. Then I revise my post, publish it, and summarize my post as a comment with a link to the specific post on my blog. Almost all of those steps I'm good with. The last part of the last step, I'm not sure about. Posting on other people's blogs with a link to your own blog is starting to strike me as tacky. Still, I still want to debunk in a full post (rather than a comment). It's a quandary and to resolve it I will look the general attitude towards this practice.
I do have a lot of content 'in the pipeline' as it is. I've been doing plenty of writing on critical thinking and critical thinking resources, so expect those to come your way soon. Part of the reason you haven't seen any of that is because my inner perfectionist has made an appearance and I don't want to publish them without editing them...again...and again. I'm breaking that tonight, with a post I think you'll find useful.
Monday, January 17, 2011
On Jenny McCarthy, Autism, and Dogma in Science
It is unfortunate that so many caring people with good intentions are terribly misinformed, and as a result are making bad decisions about their children's health. I'm speaking of course about the popular misconception that vaccines cause autism or other diseases.
While it is possible that research has overlooked something, there is currently no evidence for a vaccine-autism link. Nonetheless, Jenny McCarthy continues to argue against the United States' vaccination program, in her article, "In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?" for the Huffington Post.
The 'debate' is over because no reliable evidence has ever been put forward for that side. The debate has been over since study after study* showed no autism-MMR link, autism rates continued going up despite the removal of Thermisol.
I admit, that last question was a bit trickier for me to answer, until I stumbled upon the answer in a meta-study:
With regards to autism, there's no room for dogma: research is ongoing on the causes and risk factors. So while we must not cave in to unsupported assertions, we do have to realize, given our current state of knowledge, ideas about the condition are subject to change as science marches on.
* Here are the links to the studies themselves:
Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children: A Case-Control Study (Polish study cited by Reuters)
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study (Study covered by MSNBC)
**Stanley Plotkin, Jeffrey S. Gerber, and Paul A. Offit Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses Clinical Infectious Diseases 2009 48: 456-461.
Unfortunately, this article is not available without a subscription. I suggest checking your local library to see if they have an online subscription.
While it is possible that research has overlooked something, there is currently no evidence for a vaccine-autism link. Nonetheless, Jenny McCarthy continues to argue against the United States' vaccination program, in her article, "In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?" for the Huffington Post.
For some reason, parents aren't being told that this "new" information about Dr. Wakefield isn't a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer. Why does one journalist's accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?Ms. McCarthy would have us believe Brian Deer's accusations came out of the blue, tarnishing a respected scientist's research. However, co-authors were pulling out on the infamous paper as early as 2004, and almost a year ago, The Lancet retracted the paper altogether. It isn't only a single journalist is accusing Dr. Wakefield either: last year a panel found him guilty of 'acting unethically' and he has been removed from the medical register (in the UK, this is tantamount to losing his license to practice medicine).
The 'debate' is over because no reliable evidence has ever been put forward for that side. The debate has been over since study after study* showed no autism-MMR link, autism rates continued going up despite the removal of Thermisol.
I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son. Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only 2 of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism? Why hasn't anyone ever studied completely non-vaccinated children to understand their autism rate?Sympathy for the plight of Ms. McCarthy's child notwithstanding, this anecdote is not evidence--regression could have many causes. Just because the shot preceded the regression doesn't mean it caused the regression--that would be the Post Hoc fallacy.
I admit, that last question was a bit trickier for me to answer, until I stumbled upon the answer in a meta-study:
This comes from "Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses" in the peer-reviewed Clinical Infectious Diseases.** If you're interested in this debate, I highly recommend it, as it is understandable after a little background reading. It lays out a pretty thorough case against anti-vaccination claims. Anyway, back to Ms. McCarthy's article:No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.
These missing safety studies are causing many parents to approach vaccines with moderation. Why do other first world countries give children so many fewer vaccines than we do? What if a parent used the vaccine schedule of Denmark, Norway, Japan or Finland -- countries that give one-third the shots we do (12 shots vs. 36 in the U.S.)? Vaccines save lives, but might be harming some children -- is moderation such a terrible idea?The CDC has an excellent answer to this, in their list of misconceptions about vaccinations:
These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the ACIP and AAP recommend simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate.(Emphasis mine) Also note their "risk from disease vs. risk from vaccines." The larger number of vaccinations in America's schedule seems to be because other countries aren't vaccinating against as many illnesses as the United States is. Recent research indicates that autism is probably tied to factors that vary from region to region. In other words, not the vaccine schedule uniform across the country.
With regards to autism, there's no room for dogma: research is ongoing on the causes and risk factors. So while we must not cave in to unsupported assertions, we do have to realize, given our current state of knowledge, ideas about the condition are subject to change as science marches on.
* Here are the links to the studies themselves:
Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children: A Case-Control Study (Polish study cited by Reuters)
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study (Study covered by MSNBC)
**Stanley Plotkin, Jeffrey S. Gerber, and Paul A. Offit Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses Clinical Infectious Diseases 2009 48: 456-461.
Unfortunately, this article is not available without a subscription. I suggest checking your local library to see if they have an online subscription.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Addendum: 'The Importance of Critical Thinking'
Yes, another addendum. This one deals with my previous post, 'The Importance of Critical Thinking'. However, it doesn't deals with my remarks on healthcare reform, rather than the main point. (I am not retracting my belief that 'critical thinking' is important, in other words.) Here's the part I screwed up:
What about double counting? This appears to be legitimate:
The evidence is rather messy and complicated. No, the CBO didn't engage in double-counting--but some of the bill's promoters probably did. Yes, the doc fix will add to the deficit--but arguably it was coming anyway.
Let's look at the question the study asked to see how it relates to the study itself:
*More information on the doc fix: Paul Krugman (NYT; believes it shouldn't count) and Megan McArdle (The Atlantic; believes it should count).
**Note that the bolding is my own, and not in the original report.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was instructed to tally up the costs for H.R. 3590, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka Healthcare Reform.Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that. Several of the examples given the video don't add up. Having looked into them, I'm not sure the 'doc fix' can legitimately be called a part of health care reform, since it's an artifact from a 1997 attempt to save money on medicare costs by slashing doctor compensation and arguably has nothing to do with the recent bill*.However, for political reasons, various healthcare reform-related bills were separate and not part of the CBO's tally. So it is both correct and incorrect to say that healthcare reform would increase the deficit: the primary bill won't, but various other bills probably will.
What about double counting? This appears to be legitimate:
To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.Accounting tricks! Oh my! Well, not quite. Note the bolded part**. So the CBO did not count Medicare savings twice. Ergo, to subtract the trust fund savings from the CBO's figures would be misleading. (However, to take people to task for describing the bill as both improving the solvency of Medicare and reducing the deficit would be correct.)
The evidence is rather messy and complicated. No, the CBO didn't engage in double-counting--but some of the bill's promoters probably did. Yes, the doc fix will add to the deficit--but arguably it was coming anyway.
Let's look at the question the study asked to see how it relates to the study itself:
Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the budget deficit over the next ten years...will not increase the deficit...views are equally divided...think it will increase the deficit. (pg. 8, sidebar)Since it uses the word law rather than laws, I submit that since the major healthcare reform bill is in fact predicted to reduce the deficit (despite the impact of other healthcare-related laws), the study authors were correct in choosing 'will not increase the deficit.' It is a somewhat confusing (not to mention partisan) issue, but I think I can objectively state the study authors did not screw this question up.
*More information on the doc fix: Paul Krugman (NYT; believes it shouldn't count) and Megan McArdle (The Atlantic; believes it should count).
**Note that the bolding is my own, and not in the original report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)