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

By null null92%

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% (1,447 of 18,604 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.20% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
27.2%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
4.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
46.9%
Framing Effect
12%
Loss Aversion
8.2%
Status Quo Bias
7%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
25.4%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
4.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
10.4%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
2.3%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
12.5%
False Dilemma
4.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
10.4%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
12%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
13.4%
Appeal to Nature
2.7%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
3.9%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
4.3%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
27.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
27.2%
Biased Writer Voice
59.4%
Indoctrination
12.5%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
9.8%

441 words analyzed.

Analysis

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