There Isn't a Single Honest Health Economist Who Agrees with the LA Times on IPABhttp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/there-isnt-a-single-honest-he... I am not aware of a single fact-checker who has grasped that basic point. Not PolitiFact, not the Associated Press, not FactCheck.org, not The Washington Post's Fact-Checker, not this Washington Post health reporter. The Los Angeles Times called Romney's claim "erroneous" and writes:This is a myth advanced repeatedly by critics of the Affordable Care Act and debunked consistently by independent fact-checkers... the panel is explicitly prohibited from cutting benefits for people on Medicare. And there is no provision in the law that empowers the advisory board to make any decisions about what treatments doctors may provide for their patients.Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine and economics at Stanford University, responds: "The media 'fact check' business is incredibly tiresome given how pedantic and downright inaccurate it is, but I wanted to weigh in on this one before it hardens. The LA Times somehow thinks that the ACA (aka Obamacare) will have no effect on determining what care patients can get, and consequently dings Romney for saying it will. There isn't a single honest health economist out there who agrees with the LA Times on this one."Bhattacharya explains that IPAB will be able to influence care by cutting payments to providers. But that's not the half of it. IPAB has the power to do exactly what the fact-checkers think it can't: deny specific treatments to Medicare enrollees. It can even raise taxes and do other things the fact-checkers think it cannot.______________________Given that the fact-checkers are all part of the liberal media, why would anyone expect anything other than a deceitful defense of the indefensible?--fleg
I don't really believe anything from the Cato Institute. If that establishment were unbiased, I would tend to read their reports, but they are biased.Donna
I don't really believe anything from the Cato Institute. If that establishment were unbiased, I would tend to read their reports, but they are biased.DonnaThere's usually some bias in any report. It's important to read reports from various sources to obtain a reasonably accurate view on a subject. A bigger problem than bias is dishonest reporting or omission of important data. I read Cato regularly and I am not aware of any incidence where Cato was guilty of either practice - although I'm sure they're not perfect in this regard. On the other hand, the mainstream media seems to be regularly guilty of these practices - most notably the New York Times. Yet I do occasionally read the New York Times and I also occasionally read columns by authors who hold drastically different views from my own. Sometimes, it can be illuminating when one sees the errors of fact, logic or omission.I think you do yourself a disfavor and introduce error and bias into your own views by excluding a highly reputable source such as Cato.dave
I don't really believe anything from the Cato Institute. If that establishment were unbiased, I would tend to read their reports, but they are biased.The Cato Institute is libertarian. That means that they tend not to like it when government gets even bigger and more powerful by taking over ever increasing aspects of our lives. I can understand why you wouldn't read them, since you seem to have a bias against individual freedom.--fleg
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra