Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care (Policy Analysis) 93%

By null null93%

10/21/2009, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 59.4% saturation with 262 hits. Analysis detected 1,533 faulty-reasoning hits from 441 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.1% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,562 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.60% of the article peer group.

In March 2009, President Barack Obama said, “If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.” 
This paper explains how letting workers control their health care dollars and tearing down regulatory barriers to competition would control costs, expand choice, improve health care quality, and make health coverage more secure. 
First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher and the freedom to choose any health plan on the market. 
Vouchers would be means-tested, would contain Medicare spending, and are the only way to protect seniors from government rationing. 
Second, to give workers control over their health care dollars, Congress should reform the tax treatment of health care with “large” health savings accounts. 
Large HSAs would reduce the number of uninsured Americans, would free workers to purchase secure health coverage from any source, and would effectively give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut without increasing the federal budget deficit. 
Third, Congress should break up state monopolies on insurance and clinician licensing. 
Allowing consumers to purchase health insurance licensed by other states could cover one-third of the uninsured without any new taxes or government subsidies. 
Finally, Congress should reform Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program the way it reformed welfare in 1996. 
Block-granting those programs would reduce the deficit and encourage states to target resources to the truly needy. 
The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decisionmaking means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks. 
In March 2009, President Barack Obama said, “If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.” 
This paper explains how letting workers control their health care dollars and tearing down regulatory barriers to competition would control costs, expand choice, improve health care quality, and make health coverage more secure. 
The great advantage of a free market is that innovation and more prudent decisionmaking means that fewer patients will fall through the cracks. 
Michael F. 
Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.2%null null: 9.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias27.2%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 6.4%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.3%null null: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 46.9%null null: 11.3%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias46.9%This article: 12.0%null null: 13.7%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 8.2%null null: 3.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion8.2%This article: 7.0%null null: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 25.4%null null: 8.2%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias25.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%null null: 8.8%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%null null: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%null null: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.5%null null: 5.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority12.5%This article: 4.3%null null: 9.9%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 5.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.4%null null: 15.2%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization10.4%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 6.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.0%null null: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.4%null null: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof13.4%This article: 2.7%null null: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.7%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%null null: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.3%null null: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.2%null null: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote27.2%This article: 27.2%null null: 2.6%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection27.2%This article: 59.4%null null: 16.2%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice59.4%This article: 12.5%null null: 12.7%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination12.5%This article: 0.0%null null: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%null null: 13.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%null null: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.8%

441 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech295writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageBarack Obama • 60 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageBarack Obama • 60 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCato Institute • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Barack Obama

100%flagged-word coverage
120 attributed words82% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Barack Obama: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Barack Obama: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-80.0 ptsWriter: 80.0%Barack Obama: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-18.6 ptsWriter: 18.6%Barack Obama: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Barack Obama: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.