Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by bkohlmann on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:01PM
(#13950879)
It's interesting that you use the term "fair warning," which may dissuade someone from reading the article and coming to their own conclusions. As someone who values hearing the perspectives of all sides, I find it useful to hear pro-market arguments in something like health care. It helps me challenge my assumptions, especially since health care does seem to be increasingly costly and complex...as the amount of government oversight increases every year.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by savanaly on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:04PM
(#13950893)
I don't interpret "fair warning" as meaning "this person is a wrongthinker, stay away!" I interpret it as "you may find this article interesting, but be aware that its source is outside the mainstream and maybe even outside the Overton window."
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by bkohlmann on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:27PM
(#13951056)
I guess we just have a difference in interpretations of the term. My recent (admittedly amateur) interest in behavioral economics and persuasion leads me to believe that even sophisticated people are susceptible to the effects of framing. If you prime someone to read something with a bias towards skepticism, they will either avoid it due to confirmation bias, or potentially read it differently than they would have without the prime. That may not even be your intent, but in reality it happens. And as for "outside the mainstream" - whose mainstream or Overton window? My "mainstream" actually takes Mises very seriously. It sounds like yours does not. I suppose under a broad definition, a warning could be warranted for nearly every article depending on the audience.
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by pdabbadabba on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:05PM
(#13950900)
I read that as simply a warning about potential bias. If anything, I find that being on the lookout for potential bias actually helps be come to my own conclusions.
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by bkohlmann on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:28PM
(#13951062)
Very possible. But a warning about potential bias may induce an (un?)intended bias of its own!
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by frgtpsswrdlame on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:06PM
(#13950901)
Hearing the perspectives of all sides is only useful when they're honest. Any article which talks about Nixon's effects on healthcare and laws passed in 1972 and 1974 but skips right over the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 is not being honest.
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by ancap on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:18PM
(#13950993)
The article never claimed to provide an exhaustive list of all healthcare related laws and their affects. In exactly what way does omitting that law weaken their argument?
Re:How the Government Ruined US Healthcare – And What Can Be...
by frgtpsswrdlame on Friday March 24, 2017 @03:09PM
(#13951398)
I don't expect an exhaustive list, but saying that Nixon's laws in 72 and 74 made our current state of healthcare while ignoring the 73 law is a glaring omission. Considering it allowed the rise of for-profit HMOs I would expect a decent article to at least address/dismiss the concern that maybe this law is part of the reason our prices have gone up so much.