It is hard to know science and pseudo-science, or what is science done in service of power versus science in search of truth. Perhaps that’s why so many of us are drawn to astrophysics – there is no agenda. It’s pure science. People simply want to know stuff.
Generally, one has to look to funding of a scientific study to judge its merits. It’s not that people are dishonest – we are more complicated than that – we are like kitty cats, cold-hearted hunters but keyed to survival and smart enough to know that the when the owner is pleased, there is food in the bowl. So when someone who is not disinterested pays for an “objective” study, it ceases to be objective and we get bad science.
So some dude over at Electric City Weblog cited an article in Atlantic that cited a study that showed that not having health insurance has no consequences in terms of living, statistically speaking.
Megan McArdle has a great blah blah blah article in The Atlantic addressing blah blah blah the oft cited statistic that so many people blah blah blah die from lack of health insurance blah blah blah
Ah, go read it yourself. It’s flatulence. It seemed logical that health insurance itself is not a determinant of life expectancy so much as access to health care. Also, a study that basically says that we’re all going to die of something anyway and that our health care system kills as many as it saves is really taking an unkind swipe at the best health care system in the world, isn’t it? I suggested as much to The Dude, along with citing a Harvard Medical study, and here’s the response I got:
Mark, a couple of things. First, where is the study you cite. If you’re going to assert good statistics you need to offer a gateway to the data. Secondly, if you think you’re right you suffer from a lack of epistemological modesty. But we already knew that.
The Dude was right. I cited a Reuters article, and not the study itself, from the Journal of Public Health (subscription wall), and written about in Harvard Science. The Dude does not know about the Google. But I had never been accused before of suffering from “lack of epistemological modesty. I looked it up, and sure enough, it exists, and it is a serious accusation. I needed a smart and quick defense of my position, something grounded in science. Fortunately, I was with my son and daughter, who are well-versed in epistemology as well as spirituality. I asked them for help with an appropriate response. Here’s what they came up with:
You can lecture me on epistemological deficiencies after we rip off your head and shit down your neck. Also, your insult very much reminds me of what your mother once said to me after I got off her (case).
Scientifically sound, even if crudely expressed. Thanks to my lovely children for helping me correctly analyze a study of the scientific method as it relates to covering the bare ass of our lousy health insurance system.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, it’s one thing when we insult and spar with each other on the blogs. Your message at ECW and here I find truly shocking and revealing quite a troubled soul. All I can do is offer you this Irish prayer:
“May the raindrops fall lightly on your brow
May the soft winds freshen your spirit
May the sunshine brighten your heart
May the burdens of the day rest lightly upon you
And may God enfold you in the mantle of His love.”
LikeLike
Craig – I mean no disrespect, OK? But your mother is a whore. OK? She takes money in return for sexual services. OK? A whore. No disrespect.
LikeLike
…our lousy health insurance system.
So…if we put you in charge of designing a better system, can you promise that we would have better outcomes?
LikeLike
Absolutely.
LikeLike
Public and private sectors are only as good as our abilities.
I’d rather put our efforts into making a better private sector. It has better feedback mechanisms.
There is an Indian Health Serviced clinic down the road. I’d hate to think that that is the future of health care in this country.
LikeLike
Too funny … 38,38 countries do it and have more success than us, but you’re worried it doesn’t work. Talk about being shackled by ideology! Yours is so rigid that it won’t even let you observe objective data. That is one effective system of indoctrination we have here.
LikeLike
Ha ha. You lecturing about ideological shackles. Please.
I’m not against improving the system. I’m just skeptical about turning it over to our current crop of civil servants.
Things aren’t currently as bad as you think. Things aren’t as better elsewhere as you think.
LikeLike
I;m not so easily pigeonholed as that. You are right when you say
So what? Your point is pointless. But other countries do cost about half of what we do and deliver better outcomes. I have no doubt that if you go to any one of them, they will be debating furiously over deficiencies and potential improvements.
But this is key: There is no movement anywhere other than some top-down shit in Canada and holding-at-gunpoint in Iraq to move to an American-style system.
It takes deep indoctrination and rigorous effort to ignore the things you ignore. You are a case study.
LikeLike
You are a case study.
Thank you.
…no movement anywhere…to move to an American-style system.
A lot of them free ride off our research and commercialization of drugs and procedures. A lot of them come here for care.
I don’t want to defend the current system in toto. My point is that people who agitate for change often lead us deeper into the woods.
LikeLike
We free ride of research of others, and our pharmas free ride on universities and small startups. Not a valid or useful point.
Some rich people come here for hi-tech care – Saudi princes, that sort of thing. The Canadian migration here for care has long been debunked. Again, not useful.
And again, if you cannot learn from what really works elsewhere, then you are an iceberg, intellectually frozen by ideology.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical of those who claim they have a better way, especially when it involves more and more government. Entropy has a way of increasing.
I suppose there is a back story, but your reply to Craig Moore looked psychotically harsh.
LikeLike
You’re simply repeating a ‘truism’ here- something you regard as factual, per se, that government solutions to problems are inherently inefficient.
You’re wrong. Many right wing truisms are false, like taxes hurting economic growth … false.
And yeah, I was needling Craig unmercifully, as he was bugging me about a joke response my son and daughter and I made to a really pompous Budgism over at ECW. Craig totally thought it was for real. So I just carried it forward here.
LikeLike
if you cannot learn from what really works elsewhere
I am less excited about importing someone else’s social policy than you. I remain calmly confident Americans will bloat and high cost anything put out there. It is a kind of conservation of social momentum.
LikeLike
The prosecution rests.
LikeLike