-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Claims of biased media coverage on Bernie Sanders from his top campaign advisors
- Thread starter Troast
- Start date
I've seen Warren criticized over the stat terminology w medical bankruptcies previously. The actual stats are pretty messy because as a proportion of patients its a pretty low number and when you're looking at Bankruptcy cases its often hard to isolate a singular primary cause in the data without poring over it by hand, and the 500K will include people for whom medical debt is incidental.
and that doesn't even include the pepole that just... ya no... die from not being able to afford care.
wapo are enablers of this broken systems. Fucking gross.
wapo are enablers of this broken systems. Fucking gross.
Yeah this totally misses the point.
500K bankruptcies involve Medical bills as part of it. That does not mean 500 K were caused by them.
If you have a $1000 Dr bill and a 150K business loan and you're bankrupt, it will count for the 500k, but stating the Medical bill caused it would be...very much not correct.
This is enough to dismiss this Salon article.
JFC how is that gettting published through an editor? Are they doing Forbes Contributor stuff?
The POV of "its actually a bad thing that the SuperDelegates didnt override the will of the Dem electorate" is completely telling.
That tweet is from a parody account and isn't supposed to be taken seriously.
It's like no shit the superdelegates went to who they almost always go to, the majority winner in the primaries.
It does line up with what Bernie wants though. He's the only candidate who has openly supported superdelegates voting against the majority winner.
the point of the super delegates is clear to me, and there is a case to be made for them not voting for the winner (I.e. against a trump like figure taking over the party) so not sure why you think this is some Bernie thing.
keep grinding that axe I guess
They're a tiebreaker and/or an emeegency killswitch in case of a John Edwards.
Flipping an election result wholesale outside of the latter circumstance would implode the party.
^ Correct. Outside of two very very rare cases, they should never be involved other than voting the majority.
The 500,000 bankruptcies claim is worth Pinocchios because it's the kind of thing that gets easily deflated and dismissed.
Sanders doesn't have to exaggerate to make a valid point but often does and it undermines his credibility.
Sanders doesn't have to exaggerate to make a valid point but often does and it undermines his credibility.
Yes, it would be a bad thing if the GOP had no opposition party, or you ended up with a Canada situation where you're constantly vote splitting in a FPTP system and getting ____ Fords because of it.
Yeah man because all these cheerleaders of the status quo are doing such a great job. Obviously I was being a little facetious but yeah, speak about being the lesser evil.
When faced with a health crisis, and stories where people have outright died, for things like rationing insulin, the answer should -never- be pedantry
And far too many times that seems to be the response from certain privileged groups. It denotes a lack of humanity and a grave misunderstanding of what's at stake— often the very lives of people.
It'd do them well to remember that just because they're one inch farther from the precipice, it doesn't mean they won't fall eventually.
And far too many times that seems to be the response from certain privileged groups. It denotes a lack of humanity and a grave misunderstanding of what's at stake— often the very lives of people.
It'd do them well to remember that just because they're one inch farther from the precipice, it doesn't mean they won't fall eventually.
To be honest, I'm not so sure that the party wouldn't implode in an emergency kill switch situation. To even have a Dem candidate be successful enough where that would be necessary would mean that the party not be the same party that it is today. Our current electorate would never nominate someone that needed to be torpedoed by superdelegates; too many safeguards to break through before it would get to that point.
The answer given isn't "pedantry" though, it isn't like this is the outlet's or even the writer's core thoughts about the current healthcare situation. This is the latest edition in a running article series about "facts" (I think the core concept is stupid but whatever), therefore to me it isn't people weaponising a minor mistakes to shit on life-changing legislation. The truth is that we live in a world that is profoundly broken and unfair, and there are an almost infinite amount of potential solutions. Indulging the impulse to discard legitimate critique of our underlying assumptions, gets us further away from being a society that can make decisions in the best possible way.
and we would've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that dang Bernie and his bros!
Maybe the twitter user and you should read the article? Cause those numbers are brought up. A more precise study rebutting the original numbers came out.
A good attempt at defending the status quo by trying to take away the reality of the situation. This is why the system is so messed up. Can't allow people to see that though, right?
that study takes 'a random sample of California hospital patients between 2003 and 2007' and then the author estimates the number across the entire country which is absolutely insane (and makes the guy look like a real dumb statistician)
and it also stops in 2007, I wonder what happened to peoples finances after 2007
If that's insane how is the other study better? They mass mailed people who filed bankruptcy and asked if they had medical bills involved. A minority responded and the study then considered anyone with medical bills declaring bankruptcy as having declared bankruptcy because of medical bills.
if its sampling the entire country, its already better
No it isn't. You're ignoring what's being measured and how. A more dispersed sampling of a bad data point doesn't make it good.
What do you expect? Someone has a major surgery or health problem one year, the first thing they are going to do is start charging their every day expenses on the credit card because they have so many damn medical bills, so this notion that the numbers is inflated is a really interesting approach that you would almost have to attempt to push. Fact of the matter is, no one should have to pay what we pay in this country each year for insurance OR the care that is provided.
Can we change the thread title to "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders shows bias against him" already?
it makes it a better estimate than back of the napkin math from a California study using 10 year old data
That study doesn't identify those people without also including those with bills they just happened to have at the time or those who had other massive debts that drove bankruptcy. It's not a good way to measure what they're trying to measure.
No it doesn't.
Well Obamacare was supposed to end medical bankruptcies, so I guess I see the need in refuting the stats because right now the alternative on the left is small enhancements to it.
It was never to end medical bankruptcies but reduce them. Knowing what they were before and after the law, accurately, is extremely important.
Fucking how? There is literally nothing disingenuous about it. Like its literally an accurate report of how things went down.
Edit: just saw the super delegates part. Not sure how I missed that paragraph. I definitely don't agree with that part.
However I will say. A large portion of super delegates were pledged well before it came to convention time, so I think anyone claiming that they were distributed purely on the basis of who had more delegates in the end is not fully accurate either.
Last edited:
The rollingstone fact-checked WaPo's' story and I have to say, WaPo created this mess for themselves.
So the main take-aways for me here are that 1) Sanders was just repeating what the study said (rounding down the number, in fact) and did not actually spin the study's findings out of context, and 2) The author made the same kind of disingenuous statements he's accusing Sanders of making. Why am I not surprised?
Sanders is making a claim that a) isn't actually supported by the study he cites and b) is contradicted by other studies. The study does not show the number of people who declared bankruptcy because of medical bills. It shows how many people declared bankruptcy that say they had medical bills. No attempt is made to objectively quantify the latter's relationship to the former.
The author of that study disagrees with you. The study says "equivalent of 530,000 medical bankruptcies" and that's all Sanders would need to accurately cite the study. Furthermore. Sanders is citing the author's conclusions and relying on the expertise of author, not drawing his own conclusions about the study. If you want to find fault with that he said, then it should be on the basis that he cites a study that you don't agree with, not that he's making a claim that the study doesn't support.
As you'll see from the receipts already posted, there wasn't actually a "lack of peer review".
They are rating the claim. The evidence does not support the claim. It's incredibly simple. If I say humans are not causing global warming and then point to a paper saying the same, it doesn't make my claim true. If the paper is flawed it doesn't support the claim, even if the author claims otherwise.
I really don't understand. The study identifies those declaring bankruptcy that had medical bills. That's simply not the same thing as those declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills.
"Lack of peer review" is a portion of a direct quote from the editor of the journal that published the editorial. WaPo simply states it didn't go through the same peer review that research papers do.
Last edited: