John Kerry, health care triggers, and the "No True Scotsman" fallacy

[TayTay]

I have the deepest urge to turn off the computer and not discuss health care with anyone for a week. I am deeply dissatisfied with the discussion on both sides. The RW has distorted the facts, outright lied about goals and outcomes of the Dem proposals and rejoiced in the fact that they might be able to deny change of a system that is rotting from the core out. The online Dems have become doctrinaire, rigid and unable to discuss anything besides the need for a public option. The debate itself is false and I think I might benefit from seeking my own counsel on it for a while.

The Boston Globe has a http://www.boston.com/yourtown/somerville/articles/2009/09/04/kerry_poised_to_take_greater_role_in_health_care_debate/?page=2">nice little interview with Sen. Kerry in today's (9/4/09) edition. He is quoted, by an actual reporter with attribution. Some excerpts:

And though he strongly favors a public insurance plan consumers could buy into, Kerry has also floated an alternative to appeal to skeptics - a “trigger’’ mechanism that would create a public option only if private insurers fail to hit price targets after new regulations take effect.

SNIP ....

When they return to Washington next week, he said, Democrats should focus on developing the strongest health care plan they can - and they should not yet back away from the public plan, which he called “the best way to try to hold costs down.’’

SNIP .....

Democrats could resort to Plan B - ignoring Republicans and a few moderate Democrats and enacting a health care plan under special budget rules known as “reconciliation,’’ which requires a simple majority vote but limits the content of the bill. Kerry said he “absolutely’’ considers this to be a viable alternative if necessary.

“I think it’s time for us to see what we can produce as Democrats with 60 votes,’’ Kerry said. “If you can’t, you have to turn around and see what you can do with 51 votes.’’

I deduce from this article that Sen. Kerry:

• Is strongly in favor of the public option and will work for it on the Senate Finance Committee;
  
• Understands that there might not be 60 votes in the Senate to get a public option through in a stand-alone bill;
  
• Favors using the process of reconciliation to get parts of health reform through if all else fails; and
  
• believes that triggers, if all else fails, might be a way to get a public option.
  

What I think portions of the liberal web will hear is:

John Kerry is in favor of a triggers. Triggers are evil and only apostates and traitors use them. (Oh and electricians, but they are exempt because, well, they have to use them.) Primary him, or tar and feather him or boil him in effigy. (ouch and a mixed metaphor, btw.)

We seem to be seeing a bad case of the http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/">No true Scotsman logical fallacy at work here. (WTF Tay, pray tell, is that. So glad I asked.)

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

1. Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
   
2. No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
   Therefore:
   
3. Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
   Therefore:
   
4. Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
   

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Sen. Kerry is in favor of the public option, but he mentioned triggers. No "true liberal" believes in or talks about triggers. Therefore, Kerry cannot be a proponent of the public option because he had the audacity to scope out triggers. Voila! We have defined a great proponent of the public option and liberal reform of the public health system as Not a True Public Options person.

I am tired of this dishonest argument. I hope we get something real to talk about soon. I actually do think that there are variations on the theme in health care reform and that those variations are okay. The discussion itself is so bizarre. Maybe it can get better, maybe it can't, but Lord I think I need to disengage from the liberal web for a while.

[beachmom]

1. Except now I am an idiot. I told someone on Dkos that it was a lie

to say he "floated" a trigger, when now we see this in the Globe.

Sigh, better communication from JK's office would be helpful.

[TayTay]

2. No, you are not

The discussion itself is a logic trap.

Olympia Snowe has discussed triggers in the Senate Finance Committee. Ah, unless she has seated herself in front of a mirror, then presumably, she is discussing them with other Senators on that committee. She might have even discussed them with John Kerry.

Discussing something is not the same as supporting it. Discussing something as a theoretical in a cascading list of events that you want to see happen in descending order is not the same thing as endorsing them.

Sen. Kerry did not then and has not now endorsed triggers. He mght have discussed them in the course of backroom talk about the health care debate. So have people at DU, people who don't favor them. That does not make Senator Kerry and adherent of triggers anymore than people at DU who discuss triggers are adherents of them.

The logical trap is that mere discussion of triggers or even admission that they are part of the discussion in the Senate Finance Committee discussions is admission of support for triggers. It is not.

That is a trap. I am not in favor of triggers at the top of the list of things to do about health care. Is merely constructing this article then proof I favor triggers, merely because I mentioned them? Also, we don't know what was discussed 2 months ago in informal talks in the SFC. They were informal talks without commitment to cause or bill. They were specifically meant as pre-discussion to a committee review and NOT as commitment to end result.

The discussion of triggers is a logic trap and meant to be so. It is designed on our side to trap anyone who mentions these are being in favor of them. Merely mentioning them is proof of guilt. It is not proof of anything, including guilt. Kerry put them at the bottom of list of things he wants. But, even mentioning them, becomes proof of guilt. IT is not proof of anything.

Besides, if the argument was made that "he floated the triggers," you need proof of that. Sen. Snowe has been floating that idea. Sen. Kerry has been reactive to that idea, which belongs to Snowe not Kerry. And again the fallacy, is mentioning this tantamount to the crime?

This is a circular argument and presupposed guilt, no matter what you do.

[beachmom]

5. Okay, I feel better. To me "floating" is the same as "proposing" (Huff Po's word)

and the way it sounds is John Kerry storming into a meeting saying "HEY. I have the BEST IDEA EVAH!!! Trigger, baby!!!" Not the way it really happened, which was feeling out Sen. Snowe's position. So to me, if I am understanding this all correctly, even the Globe is a bit off. He didn't come up with the idea; he is merely talking about it with Senators like Snowe who are still on the fence as to the public option.

[TayTay]

8. The problem with this particular logic trap

is that it no longer matters how it came up or who came up with it. The trap is that it is forbidden in any way to discuss this matter at all. Discussing it implies consent.

There were and will be informal discussions by Senators on the Finance Committee about various aspects of the bill to come. Some will be serious, some will be trial balloons that never see the light of day. Some will be internal measures meant to see how other Senators react to them. This is all a part of how the US Senate works.

Now, we could ask that all Senators have a wire attached to them so that every single thing they do, every move they make, every breath they take, so to speak, is recorded. Then we would know when proposals were made and who made them. However, this is a lousy way to make law and a really lousy way to treat elected public officials.

The trap is that it was wrong to even think this. (The left is prosecuting a thought crime here.) I don't want to prosecute thought crimes. I think that is wrong. I believe that Sen. Kerry, Snowe, Baucus or anyone else can discuss what they want when they want. I don't believe in thought crimes.

[YvonneCa]

9. I agree with you. There comes a point when...

...scrutinizing every move is not only counterproductive, but it harms one's ability to reach the goal. Legislators must have the autonomy to discuss and seek out support and be creative and find solutions to problems. Otherwise they can't be effective.

This actually reminds me of what NCLB is doing to teachers. And the result is undermining what SHOULD happen in the classroom...learning.

[karynnj]

13. Not only that the rigidity ignores that

Senator Kerry has argued very well for the public option - defining why it is important. The main reason is that including it in the mx puts pressure on the insurance companies to compete so they don't lose business.

To me, rigidity and having blinkers on blinding them to all but one solution - that may not have the votes is not intellectually honest or mature. The idiotic statement that the public option is already the compromise is less logical than arguments kids use when something they want is not feasible. At this point, the public option might become possible if Senators - like Kerry - are able to find ways to deal with the real concerns the conservative Democrats have. If not, then - as Kerry said on Sunday - they will have to look to see if they can get something good enough.

At that point, a bill that has all the good features that have been listed often with a public option with a trigger might be a better alternative than many other ways of giving something up. If a trigger is needed to get votes, maybe we can make it a real test that would not impact the timing at all of when the public option became available. The House bill sets the implementation a few years in the future - likely because time is needed to set it up. What if a trigger were set for that point in tme. Then the work to develop a public option would go forward on the same schedule as planned without the trigger.

If the insurance companies meet stiff specified guidelines of reducing administrative costs and lowering their premiums, then the plan is put on hold - but a public option staff is maintained that could update the plans and also analyze results in the private world. If, as may more likely be the case, the private companies failed to meet the guidelines, then the public option is introduced on the same schedule it would have had there been no trigger.

In this case, the threat of a public option would have created the same effect created by the public option itself.

The important things to fight for then include:
1) a trigger this short
2) Yearly triggers to insure that as there are efficiencies, part of the lowering of prices is passed on.
3) Tough definitions for the trigger. (Consider that all companies will see their cost go down as the cost for uninsured people goes to zero.

[TayTay]

16. Excellent post

thank you for putting this up.

Just so, just so.

[ProSense]

14. I have a problem with this

image too: John Kerry storming into a meeting saying "HEY. I have the BEST IDEA EVAH!!! Trigger, baby!!!"


Yikes.

:rofl:

[MBS]

3. this is the most sensible summary of this issue I've seen in weeks!

To tell the truth, I'd gotten so confused by all the back-and-forth (and also completely befuddled by the hysteria on the far Right), that I'd almost given up trying to sort everything out. You've helped me get back on track!

[TayTay]

10. Thank you for the kind remarks.

Sometimes debate resembles trying to unscramble an egg; it's theoretically possible, but I don't really want to try it.

[Inuca]

4. Thanks for this thread TayTay

I came here to start an OT thread about how ugly it is getting "out there". Kerry as expected is both wise and pragmatic about all this. I'll be damned if I know what to think about Obama and this whole issue at this point. I guess I am getting in a somewhat hysterical frame of mind myself, not good. I'll try to stay away for the week-end, maybe it will help :-).

But it's not the week-end yet, so may I ask: how do you guys feel about the WH supposedly working on their own plan? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/4/777027/-BREAKINGWH-makes-own-version-of-HC-Reform-(updated) My gut reaction is that AT THIS POINT, after all that happened, all the work, good, bad or frustratingly invisible that has been done in the various committees, this does not seem right. But I cannot go beyond the gut reaction, I don't know what to make of it...

[wisteria]

7. Well, if they are working on something and using some of the ideas from the various committees

then it might be a good thing. People need some clarity on this issue, many people are confused and don't understand just what is going on. If the WH can show they have a grasp on the issue along with a well laid out plan, it will calm people down IMO.

[TayTay]

11. I think it might just define the debate

The Repubs have been defining the debate and telling people, falsely, what is in a bill that isn't really written yet. That has not really worked out well.

I kind of wish the Dems had taken a page out of the Repub play book from 1994 and written a "American Health Care Bill of Rights." This could have clearly delineated what the Democratic goal is and listed things like stopping denial of service for pre-existing conditions, making insurance portable, stopping gender and age discrimination and so forth.

Maybe it's not too late to do this. Most Americans are happy with their health care plans, when they can get them. They want to control the costs and fix the access problems. (In other words, they like their docs and hospitals but are not crazy about the insurance companies and dread the bills.) The President is the head of the Dem Party. He has to lead. He has to lead clearly and tell people what he wants. Then some of this silliness can end. Then we can deal with this as a whole plan rather than the plan as a series of surprises.

[wisteria]

18. Agree. n/t

[wisteria]

6. I am sick of the purists and some of the blame falls on them if we do not get reform.

They have framed this debate in their own way, just as the RW has, only instead of using fear,lies and distortion, they have framed it as black and white with no room for compromise-all or nothing. Did they really think an issue as complicated as this one could just be scraped and redone just the way they wanted it with no compromise?
Personally, I have liked the idea of the trigger from the first time I heard it. It seems like a good compromise, if handled properly if would keep a check on the Insurance Co. and create some competition among them all the while having this threat, if you will, of the public option readily available if necessary.

[Luftmensch067]

12. In an internet cafe in Santa Monica, have to go grocery shopping in a minute

But I wanted to share my confusion here. :-)

You know, I confess I haven't really known much about what the "public option" was about. And I probably still don't. But I had some interesting experiences on Wednesday.

Heard Bob Dole on NPR while I was getting ready to go to the Town Hall Meeting with JK. Normally, I hear Bob Dole on the radio and I say horrible things out loud to no one. But what he was talking about put things into some perspective for me. He was saying that he and another Republican senator and two Democratic senators (they may all have been ex-senators because the two he mentioned were himself and Daschle) have formed a sort of advisory/working group and are recommending their own bipartisan solution to the WH (this is what I understood, anyway.) A key part of their plan would be to give the private insurance companies 4-5 years to "shape up" and guarantee that if they don't, Congress will step in and require them to. Of course, I was scoffing loudly at that one. He absolutely is saying that these insurance companies will do this because it is the Right Thing to Do. Yeah.

When asked why the 4-5 year delay, Dole pointed out that a lot of the elements of at least some of the bills currently up before Congress aren't scheduled to start for a few years anyway. I didn't agree with the plan Dole was describing, but then when I heard JK and others describing the Public Option, it struck me that all of this is really designed to force the private insurance companies to change their ways. The Dole-described plan seems to rely on self-regulation to work and the Public Option is designed to inject competition into the market, but pretty much for the same reason, to get the private insurance companies to self-regulate.

Is that anywhere near what you all understand to be the case?

The way the Left have been talking about the Public Option, they almost had me convinced that it is some guarantee of Single Payer. I wonder how many other people are confused about this?

Even with the crazy LaRouchies and the people behind me in line who were for the McCain plan, as far as I could tell (making people shop for the best plan out of every state), it was clear to me just how unclear a lot of this is to people on every part of the spectrum.

Sorry if none of this makes sense - it's hot here and my brain is fried!

[TayTay]

15. This is essentially right

The public option is NOT single-payer. Sen. Kerry and many others have said that any public entity created HAS to self-fund by way of client funds. There will be start up funding for this, but it HAS to become self-funding. Otherwise, it would bust the federal budget.

The design is indeed to get private insurance companies to straighten up and fly right, so to speak. Health care costs are currently somewhere around 14-16% of our national GDP, far more than most industrialized countries. Unless we do something, they could spiral to 40% of GDP, which is unsustainable.

There will be many compromises to come on this bill. We are focused on the public option end of this. The fight over other aspects of this bill are likely to be equally difficult. This will come out as the bill advances.

This was a cheat sheet that ran in http://www.dailytitan.com/2009/08/heres-whats-really-in-the-health-care-reform-bill/">the Lowell Sun a while ago on the bill, and it was, loosely, right.

Is health care required?

Yes. Like in Massachusetts, the federal plan includes an individual mandate to have health insurance. Those who do not have coverage that meets the mandatory basic coverage requirements will be penalized by the IRS in their tax returns. Small businesses with a payroll of over $500,000 will also be required to offer employees health insurance or face a tax penalty.

What is the public-option plan?

Like Medicare, the public-option plan would be a government-run insurance plan for consumers under 65 years old. Doctors and hospitals would not be publicly run, but the cost of care through this plan would be covered by the government instead of a private insurer. President Obama said the public-option plan would not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars, instead relying on premiums paid by consumers similar to how private insurers operate. (Note: self-funded plan that is available to all. It would not, technically, be run by the government, it would be regulated by the government.)

What is the ‘Exchange?’

Like the Commonwealth Connector in Massachusetts, the federal exchange would be a marketplace for consumers to purchase an insurance plan if they do not receive coverage through their employer. Private insurers would compete for customers among the pool of small-business owners, self-employed citizens and others who must purchase insurance on their own. The public-option plan would be one of many choices available to consumers, providing competition for private insurance and theoretically driving overall cost down.

[Inuca]

17. "The fight over other aspects of this bill are likely to be equally difficult"

Heard part of what Lawrence O'Donnell had to say on Hardball today. I like his comments on these issues because he understands how the Senate works and is usually (definitely nor always) among the most serious and informative talking heads. He was saying how mistaken we are if we think that the public option is the most thorny issue. Wait until the funding aspects come up for discussion on the floor, that's when the real fun will start. Also he came back to the idea I heard him insist on at least a couple of other times that it's misleading to think that going the reconciliation way means that 60 votes are not needed, they still are for a meaningful and "complete" bill.

[TayTay]

20. We are talking about Repubs and money

OMFG, that is a volatile combination. The Repubs will not want their backers, big money, to want to lose or sacrifice anything. This fight might just make us long for the salad days when we just were fighting over the public option.

And JK is in the very thick of that funding fight.

[wisteria]

19. I understand the public option to be just about how you described it. n/t

[karynnj]

21. Nice discussion

I think that the absolute rejection of a trigger among some is because they believe and want the public option to be a back door to single payer and their true goal is single payer - or as one person told me - a complete socialization of the medical segment of the economy! The problem with this is the large percent of people happy with the plan they have. Now, it is entirely possible that if they were magically put on a singer payer plan of the medicare for all type - they might actually like it better. But, as of now, many people absolutely do not want that for themselves.

One question to people adamantly against a trigger is what if by 2013, when the public option became available, the industry did an amazing job of making themselves more efficient and cheaper. They would after all have the incentive to start working to do so as soon as the law was passed to insure that they could retain their clients. This would show that the threat of a trigger itself does at least part of what the public option is suppose to do.

The fact is that many on the far left would not be satisfied with that, as they are ideologically for healthcare being at least non-profit.

[whometense]

22. I think in my heart of hearts I am a far-left loon on this matter.

Part of me devoutly wishes we could just blow up the entire system we have right now because it is so inherently wasteful and unfair. Even though my husband and I have very good health coverage, as a parent of young adults in the arts who are not very likely to be working for big companies with fabulous health plans I've become - very quickly - terrifyingly aware of how precarious the current system is. And of how easy it would be for anyone to fall off the grid. It's one thing to like your coverage; it's another entirely to realize that no matter how good it is, you're lucky to have it. And luck can be fleeting.

Another part of me recognizes that, economically speaking, that's a pretty radical step to take, and if we can, say, get rid of all pre-existing condition exclusions, that would make a big difference to a lot of people.

But in my heart I really believe that health-care-for-profit and fairness-and-equity can't exist side by side.

[YvonneCa]

23. You beautifully expressed my view, too...

...on the health care debate. Thank you! :hi:

[Inuca]

24. I also have a fundamental problem

with the idea of health care for profit. Seems an immoral contradiction to me. But I understood and accepted from the beginning of all this that making it otherwise is not a realistic possibility. So that was that, no sense to fight or wish or pray for it. Just make it less fundamentally unfair!

OTOH, and though the situation is completely different, I remember from my early days in Romania how free-for-all health care actually worked. No, you did not have to pay for anything in principle, but with hardly any exceptions doctors, nurses, etc. were accepting and very often demanding bribes. In relative terms, rather heavy ones. Often money, or else a kind of products for service barter. My parents were both doctors, and both among the exceptions. It did not really apply to my mother to be honest, she was head of the test lab at the hospital that the communist party big wigs were using, so not only was she not in direct contact with patients, but I don't think much bribing was taking place over there in any case, too risky. But my father was a ear-nose-throat doctor at a specialized hospital. I still remember people ringing at the door during the day and trying to convince me or my grandparents that were staying with me during the day when I was a kid to accept various "presents". He was known not to accept money, but people still could not believe that he will not accept anything, so they were coming with all kinds of other presents, including patients from the country bringing live chicken (my father was a vegetarian from his first year of med school!). I remember once I was tempted by a delicious looking and expensive box of chocolates. My father got very mad, and had it returned (with a few chocolates missing). Anyway... just a different perspective... not actually related, I know. One last amusing thing about all this: one popular "present" were American cigarettes, an almost must when seeing a dentist; and for some bizarre reason by far the most valuable smoking currency were Kent cigarettes.

[Inuca]

25. What about the argument some make

that by the time the trigger may be triggered (can you do anything else to a trigger?:-)), the law may be changed and nothing will happen?

Also, for the life of me, I just CANNOT UNDERSTAND how so many can claim to be "happy" with the insurance they've got. Even if they have the most stunningly wonderful insurance and unless they are wealthy enough that it does not matter much or have the safest federal job imaginable don't they realize that that insurance may not be there tomorrow if they lose their job???? Especially now, but even under better economic circumstances. Do so many people have so little imagination? Or are they so plain stupid :mad:? I saw the other day part of a townhall meeting Steny Hoyer had. The first questioner was a woman saying that her son and daughter in law have both recently lost their job and therefore their insurance, but that they are covered by the state (I have no idea what she was referring to, is there anything special in Maryland?) and therefore she DOES NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO GET INVOLVED (she was doing the shouting, not me, and I don't know what the hell she thought that state provided insurance is) with the health care of her family.