@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Surely you would agree with me, that those who put forth assertions should be willing to back them up with documented facts. It seems that lately you have become annoyed with my insistence that you do so. Why is this? I am doing nothing more than asking you to source your arguments. Arguing from assertion is unproductive and just boils down to people ceaselessly repeating their political viewpoints.
It depends on the assertion. Some level of general knowledge, and the ability to distinguish between propaganda and reality, are necessary precursors to any intewlligent conversation. Moreover, not all "documented facts" - even those published on the web by advocacy groups - are really true or able to withstand just a little scrutiny.
You have provided us with a good example;
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
Quote:False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed
The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.
The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings " or cuts, depending on one’s perspective " come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.
So, yeah. You are wrong on one of your major claims against the current health care proposal.
Cycloptichorn
Let's look at the statement itself. The pending House Bill cuts an annual average of $50 billion/year from Medicare spending for the next ten years (that's as far as they project). These cuts come from various medical services, not including direct payments to doctors.
In the first place the great majority of real medical costs are for those "various services' which include everything from hospitals to diagnostic services. So the implication here that medical care will not be afffected is patently deceptive.
In the second place, $50 billion/year is a lot of money. The population of the country is about 305 million, of which about 12.6% are over 65. Let's assume 95% of them are eligible for medicare (a generous assumption, given the number of illegals here). That yields about 36.5 million Medicare beneficiaries and therefore cuts of about $1,700/year per beneficiary for these services. That is roughly about 25% of my routine annual medical expenses for myself and my wife.
Medicare payments by the government are set unilaterally by a Federal bureaucracy that takes no note of variations from the average or, for that matter, the willingness of providers to accept their payments (and the restrictions that go with them) as final. It is simply a fact that rapidly increasing numbers of doctors and other medical service providers are already refusing to accept more Medicare only patients. I can't - with any reasonable effort -find you a web site that will "confirm' this, but I do know from my own direct experience that it is true. I am fortunate in that I have other options and the ability to pay the difference.
As I recall it was an AARP web site that you linked here. The AARP styles itself as an advocacy group, but the fact is it is in the health insurance business and is itself a major provider of Medicare services for the government. It has powerful vested interests at stake in this issue. It is interesting that news reports suggest that hundreds of thousands of former members have quit this organization lately over this issue.
Bottom line is that your linked "facts" aren't facts at all. Moreover, even if one accepts them as literally true, they are not conclusive to the point you are making and for which you cite the statement as conclusive proof.
It is relatively easy to conduct a duel of conflicting assertions locatable on the web. Discovering the truth, however, requires much more than that. In particular a little independent thinking; a skeptical and critical view of the source for alleged conclusions; a willingness to look behind the superficial "facts" to discover their probable meaning given the way things usually work out; and a little insight into the likely motives and drivers for the behavior of politicians are all necessary tools. Links on the web hardly scratch the surface.
