Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Inslee and Hickenlooper out

[xcvbn]

Your response is "You're done, Sheeeeeeeeeeep!"

You give no fuck about the truth, in your wee meme mind.

Hold the corporate democrats accountable for selling out the working class or get the fuck out of the way

 

[Fawlty]

"Right now, our median health care spending is twice as much as any other nation. We should talk about that. Spend twice as much."

No.

 

[Fawlty]

Hold the corporate democrats accountable for selling out the working class or get the fuck out of the way

Yeah I remember you mumbling something about how I had better get the fuck out of the way a few days ago. Ineffectual, it's not going to happen. You're a spindly-armed brat, kicking and screaming in my arms. You could try thinking better though- that could work. You could even change my mind, believe it or not.

 

[waiguoren]

No.

No, what? Sanders's statement should have referred to median health care spending, correct? The per capita figure Sanders referenced is mean, not median, but it's still close as @xcvbn pointed out. It's a minor quibble compared to the typical whoppers presidential candidates tell.

 

[xcvbn]

Yeah I remember you mumbling something about how I had better get the fuck out of the way a few days ago. Ineffectual, it's not going to happen. You're a spindly-armed brat, kicking and screaming in my arms. You could try thinking better though- that could work. You could even change my mind, believe it or not.

I'd prefer you hold the democratic establishment accountable

Parroting the bias of their donors is not that

 

[PEB]

Bell makes the case also that Pete will not win VS Trump. Nothing special other then people Do not trust him and don't think he is being honest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Median vs mean is a very minor quibble here though, especially when the correct statement (the median one) makes Sanders's point better.

It's not median vs. mean. Sanders' claim wasn't that we spend more than double the median or mean; it was that we spend more than double *any other country*. Median household income in America is around $60K. A household that makes more than $120K is more than double the median, but not more than double any other household in the country. That's not a small mistake.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Labeling it as "false" rather than "half-true" or "mostly true" is....misleading. Also, using what are in my opinion more appropriate measurements that include lost wages, lost consumption. and foregone care, the US does spend more than twice per capita of any country.

Hmm. Can you source that? Seems highly questionable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm okay with allowing for the reframing or clarification ambiguous talking points, I'm okay with some amount of (inevitable) soundbite-culture-caused fudging of facts, and I'm also okay with ripping into them a bit for misrepresenting the facts. In either case, it was not hypocritical of CNN to show that other countries spend 70% of what we do and to call Bernie on a claim that is false as stated. And yeah further information about the real impact is always good, especially our comparatively bad safety net.

Overall, the important thing is the honest effort to relate things to the facts, whether in advocacy or criticism.

Yeah, it's sad how often "telling the truth is better than lying" is a controversial claim.

 

[Trotsky]

It's not median vs. mean. Sanders' claim wasn't that we spend more than double the median or mean; it was that we spend more than double *any other country*. Median household income in America is around $60K. A household that makes more than $120K is more than double the median, but not more than double any other household in the country. That's not a small mistake.

According to WHO, the United States spends literally more than twice per capita than all but six countries in the world. Only for Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Norway would it be rhetorically improper to say we spend twice as much as them: for the other three (Sweden - 170%, Denmark - 180%, Australia - 195%) it is in that ballpark. For other major countries (UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand) we spend more than twice as much per capita.

Acting like Sanders' line was some gross misstatement in need of correction smacks of bad faith pedantry. It's like if someone responded to a remark that Russia spent a million dollars on election interference with "liberals caught lying again! they say Russia spent a million dollars but there is no evidence that they spent any more than $880,000 #RussiaHoax"

 

[Jack V Savage]

According to WHO, the United States spends literally more than twice per capita than all but six countries in the world. Only for Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Norway would it be rhetorically improper to say we spend twice as much as them: for the other three (Sweden - 170%, Denmark - 180%, Australia - 195%) it is in that ballpark. For other major countries (UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand) we spend more than twice as much per capita.

Acting like Sanders' line was some gross misstatement in need of correction smacks of bad faith pedantry. It's like if someone responded to a remark that Russia spent a million dollars on election interference with "liberals caught lying again! they say Russia spent a million dollars but there is no evidence that they spent any more than $880,000 #RussiaHoax"

I really disagree. It's not a small quibble here. Healthcare spending is strongly correlated with overall income, so, yeah, we're going to spend a lot more than most other countries, but to claim that we spend more than double *any other country* suggests that we're a massive outlier, when our spending is pretty much in line with what you'd expect given our income, and absolutely not close to double any other country on an unadjusted-for-wealth, per-capita basis.

Also, I looked up the numbers and found this, also using WHO numbers. Only 20 other countries are looked at, and nine of them spend more than half as much as us per-capita. That's consistent with other findings, that we spend about double the median developed country rather than double the second-highest-spending country, which, again, is a very large difference.

 

[waiguoren]

It's not median vs. mean. Sanders' claim wasn't that we spend more than double the median or mean; it was that we spend more than double *any other country*. Median household income in America is around $60K. A household that makes more than $120K is more than double the median, but not more than double any other household in the country. That's not a small mistake.

Sanders's original statement was that the US spends 2x as much per capita (mean) as any other country. That's accurate if we exclude only three countries (Switzerland, Norway and Germany), as @xcvbn pointed out.

It's also accurate---except that the multiple is 4x, not 2x---if we compare total private health expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2% vs 8%).

As I indicated earlier, I'd be willing to bet Sanders's statement is also accurate under a "median out-of-pocket expenditure" interpretation, which in my view is the interpretation that would best support his overall point. I'm not sure data are available to make that comparison, though.

So it's a very small mistake, if it's a mistake at all.

 

[Fawlty]

I really disagree. It's not a small quibble here. Healthcare spending is strongly correlated with overall income, so, yeah, we're going to spend a lot more than most other countries, but to claim that we spend more than double *any other country* suggests that we're a massive outlier, when our spending is pretty much in line with what you'd expect given our income, and absolutely not close to double any other country on an unadjusted-for-wealth, per-capita basis.

Also, I looked up the numbers and found this, also using WHO numbers. Only 20 other countries are looked at, and nine of them spend more than half as much as us per-capita. That's consistent with other findings, that we spend about double the median developed country rather than double the second-highest-spending country, which, again, is a very large difference.

A bigger thing than this specific instance with Sanders is that his rhetoric is just generally sloppy and outdated. It's a negative for me, I want somebody who is on the ball and cares more about being factual. Sanders cares more about the populist message, but our country has already taken on too much water on that side. That tendency is maybe the biggest reason he's down in the pack with Biden and Klobuchar for me, in that #3-5 spot below Warren and Pete.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sanders's original statement was that the US spends 2x as much per capita (mean) as any other country. That's accurate if we exclude only three countries (Switzerland, Norway and Germany), as @xcvbn pointed out.

The WHO has nine other countries being an exception. I agree that if you change his statement to fix the (very large) errors, it is not inaccurate, though. There are many other potential fixes you could have offered, also. I don't agree that trying to spin or mislead about inaccurate statements made by politicians is a productive activity, though.

 

[waiguoren]

The WHO has nine other countries being an exception. I agree that if you change his statement to fix the (very large) errors, it is not inaccurate, though. There are many other potential fixes you could have offered, also. I don't agree that trying to spin or mislead about inaccurate statements made by politicians is a productive activity, though.

There were no "very large errors". By the standards of normal political discourse, his statement was accurate. Claiming that nine other countries are exceptions is also misleading as the data aren't precise and six of nine are almost certainly within the margin of error. Willful misunderstanding won't get you far in life. Nitpicking a minor discrepancy to attack the position of a candidate you don't like makes you appear petty.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There were no "very large errors".

He said that we paid more than double per-capita for healthcare what any other country pays, which is very inaccurate.

QUOTE="waiguoren, post: 154202481, member: 232154"]By the standards of normal political discourse, his statement was accurate. Claiming that nine other countries are exceptions is also misleading as the data aren't precise and six of nine are almost certainly within the margin of error. Willful misunderstanding won't get you far in life. Nitpicking a minor discrepancy to attack the position of a candidate you don't like makes you appear petty.[/QUOTE]

If you're positing such a large margin, it's possibly more than nine. Maybe the claim that we pay more than double the developed-country median is wrong, too. You're again denying the possibility of objective knowledge and arguing, essentially, that if you don't like the facts, you should just be allowed to make up new ones. Also, I don't dislike Bernie. You're assuming I must because you don't seem to be able to get your head around anyone genuinely carrying about accuracy. This is the exact sort of barbarism I mentioned in the Lounge.

 

[waiguoren]

He said that we paid more than double per-capita for healthcare what any other country pays, which is very inaccurate.

It was a vague statement, which means that multiple interpretations are possible. I offered two reasonable interpretations under which it's true or very likely true. In your preferred interpretation, it's false but very close to true. You're nitpicking. We could find statements of Elizabeth, your favorite candidate, that are very nearly true but not quite and I think it's unlikely you would put so much time into pointing out that she was wrong.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It was a vague statement, which means that multiple interpretations are possible.

It actually isn't, though. There's zero ambiguity in it, though I understand that the campaign later "clarified" that he meant something other than what he has been saying consistently over the past decade.

We could find statements of Elizabeth, your favorite candidate, that are very nearly true but not quite and I think it's unlikely you would put so much time into pointing out that she was wrong.

It doesn't take any time, and the statement is simply false by a big margin. If Warren says something false, I don't try to deny it, and no one else does either.

 

[waiguoren]

I understand that the campaign later "clarified" that he meant something other than what he has been saying consistently over the past decade.

This is your best argument. The campaign "clarified" the statement to mean something completely different, assuming CNN's reporting is accurate (important disclaimer). On this, we agree.

It doesn't take any time, and the statement is simply false by a big margin.

Wrong.

If Warren says something false, I don't try to deny it, and no one else does either.

If Warren said something which was vague but true under many interpretations, and some website accused her of telling falsehoods, I do think you would defend her. I hope you would.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If Warren said something which was vague but true under many interpretations, and some website accused her of telling falsehoods, I do think you would defend her. I hope you would.

Sure. But if she said something that was actually false, like Bernie did when he said that we pay more than double on a per-capita basis for healthcare what any other country pays, I would not defend her. I can say straight up that I think she made a false statement about Michael Brown. I linked to an analysis showing that her analysis in the Two-Income Trap was flawed to the point that it can simply be said to be false. You're wrong when you assume that I wouldn't acknowledge factual errors she makes.