Krystal Ball: Washington Post "fact check" proves Bernie right

[Uncle Joe]

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/459689-krystal-ball-washington-post-fact-check-proves-bernie-right

Video is on the link.

[OnDoutside]

1. I didn't see that coming....

[comradebillyboy]

2. As usual WaPo is correct in fact checking Bernie. As usual Bernie's

analysis of the data is slanted and sloppy.

[efhmc]

3. Nothing new.

[KPN]

5. Try viewing the video.

[George II]

17. The video says (at about 2:50) that medical expenses are a "contributing factor"...

...that's further washing down the original claim. How much of a "contributing factor" - 10%, 20%, 30%?

Let's just get the facts cleared up from a reputable, credible source instead of all these pundits and surrogates spinning the facts the way they'd like them to be.

[melman]

56. "How much of a "contributing factor" - 10%, 20%, 30%? "

What's the number where it stops being acceptable?

[George II]

60. It's been represented more than once that medical expenses are THE reason for bankruptcies....

..."THE" being exclusive. That's not true.

If it's only 30%, then there are 70% of OTHER reasons for bankruptcies. Why aren't those detailed instead of just glossing over them like they don't exist?

I hope you'll answer that directly. TIA.

[melman]

61. "If it's only 30%"

Is this the acceptable number?

[George II]

63. If it's only 30%, that means OTHER reasons other than medical expenses represent 70% of the reason.

We're not talking about an "acceptable number", we're talking about a realistic reason why bankruptcies occur.

So what say you about that, other than another question?

[melman]

64. What do I say about what?

The nonsense you're trying to derail the thread with? I think it's nonsense.

[George II]

65. Not unexpected. Have a great night melman.

[ehrnst]

125. That's one way of avoiding the topic when one is losing ground. (nt)

[ehrnst]

151. Invincible Ignorance Fallacy:

The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

[melman]

155. Complete nonsense

Why should I entertain bad faith arguments?

[ehrnst]

172. That's an excellent example!

The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms.

[KPN]

4. Huh? You obviously didn't view the video.

Krystal Ball actually showed very clearly that Bernie's statement was factually correct and that the WaPo was wrong (most likely intentionally in order to undermine Bernie because of his forthright use of the fact that Amazon paid zero federal taxes in 2018 during his campaign presentations as an example of the gross inequities going on in our current political system).

[MrsCoffee]

6. Lol. Yeah it's a conspiracy against Bernie.

Everything is a conspiracy against Bernie.

Ffs.

[KPN]

10. No. Just pointing out facts. But there is a lot of bias against Bernie simpply because he has

pointed out in the past how the Dem Party has too often either sided with corporations or failed to consider the impacts on working class folks on political/economic issues over the years at a cost to the working class and labor.

[ehrnst]

39. "Bias?"

Fact checking is "bias?"

[KPN]

42. No, bias is bias. Fact checking that relies on actual

facts is unbiased. Using gross generalities or relying on relatively minor if not questionable exceptions to the norm is not relying on actual facts.

This whole argument is silly. It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

[ehrnst]

48. Because it doesn't flatter Senator Sanders...

This whole argument is silly. It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

You illustrate my point perfectly.

[KPN]

74. How so -- to both relative to your point?

[ehrnst]

90. I tell you what...

I'll answer your question when you answer this one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263829

How does that sound?

[ehrnst]

131. ...

[George II]

50. "Gross generalities", as you put it, are what the premise of the % of bankruptcies was based.

[ehrnst]

126. "It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie."

Because Bernie could not POSSIBLY ever, have made an error?



That's attacking the messenger, with a rather silly premise as the justification.

[melman]

127. "Because Bernie could not POSSIBLY ever, have made an error? "

Straw man.

[ehrnst]

130. Actually, the only logical basis for your premise.

And yes, it's silly.

[melman]

136. My premise

I don't think so. Check the posts again


And I was just pointing that out because I thought you enjoyed fallacy talk.


Seeing as how you're constantly (and often incorrectly) calling them out and all. But I guess not.

[ehrnst]

138. I did check them.

Thrice, even.

And yes, I'm still right. As usual....

[George II]

45. The bias is only as perceived. In fact, there IS no bias.

[sheshe2]

59. Links please.

how the Dem Party has too often either sided with corporations or failed to consider the impacts on working class folks on political/economic issues over the years at a cost to the working class and labor.

Specific facts please.

[ehrnst]

73. Not going to hold my breath on that....

[sheshe2]

81. Nor will I, ehrnst.

[KPN]

129. If you need links, you either haven't been paying attention

or don’t really care all that much. Lord knows why. I sure don’t. The 40+ year results speak for themselves. But of course, some here tend to persistently claim that millions of voters and potential are wrong about the economic record and whether, as Joe Biden said just the other day, “we haven’t been listening”.

I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone’s demand for “links” on this particular topic. Sorry ... i’m comfortable with my view without having to convince some others with “links”, especially those who seem to deny any responsibility or complicity for the past 40 years of middle and working class decline, or loss of elections.

[sheshe2]

132. This is what I asked a link for...

how the Dem Party has too often either sided with corporations or failed to consider the impacts on working class folks on political/economic issues over the years at a cost to the working class and labor.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287263274#post10

You mentioned "The Dem Party". The party as a whole "to often siding with corporations" and failed to consider impacts on working class....

You then, in response to my request for a link about your comment on The Dem Party and how they as a whole basically ignore the needs of the working class....

KPN (8,374 posts)
129. If you need links, you either haven't been paying attention

or don’t really care all that much. Lord knows why. I sure don’t. The 40+ year results speak for themselves. But of course, some here tend to persistently claim that millions of voters and potential are wrong about the economic record and whether, as Joe Biden said just the other day, “we haven’t been listening”.

…then you come here and insult me for not paying attention and that "I DO NOT CARE ALL THAT MUCH". I have been a Democrat my whole life and here you are insulting me. I CARE.

Oh, it is now clear in this paragraph who you are going after...you changed the "Dem Party" to "Joe Biden". See this is why we need links, it would make it clear who you are accusing.

I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone’s demand for “links” on this particular topic. Sorry ... i’m comfortable with my view without having to convince some others with “links”, especially those who seem to deny any responsibility or complicity for the past 40 years of middle and working class decline, or loss of elections.

You have better things to do with your time than look for links...yet you had plenty of time to respond by personally attacking me and say I don't pay attention and I don't care for the working class or the middle class.

Fact. I was the middle class and a worker. I started working at the age of 14. I am retired now after being forced out of my job at 64. There are few jobs for people my age. Oh wait! You will be happy to know that I found a new job. I am taking care of a 93 year old mom 24/7. I have been doing it for over two years now. Guess what? I do it for free!!! Ever done it? It will kill you. 24/7. Yep. 24/7.

[ehrnst]

133. That's gonna leave a mark...

[sheshe2]

135. Truth.

[KPN]

137. I stand by what I said. It was not my intent to insult you but I can see how

one could feel that way, so I do apologize for having stated that the way I did, even though it is hard for to understand how anyone doesn’t share the perspective that frankly millions of Americans do.

[ehrnst]

140. Well, the apology is a start.... but

it is hard to understand how you could accuse anyone doesn’t share the opinion that Bernie is above fact checking, that they don't share the perspective that millions of Americans do.

He's a career politician running for POTUS, not the Oracle of Delphi.

[sheshe2]

157. Thanks for the stab at an apology.

KPN
137. I stand by what I said. It was not my intent to insult you but I can see how

one could feel that way,

KPN (8,378 posts)
129. If you need links, you either haven't been paying attention

or don’t really care all that much. Lord knows why. I sure don’t.

Not your intent to insult me? AND but I can see how one could feel that way. It was your intent and your response now is condescending since in the same breath of your apology you state that "I stand by what I said."

[George II]

159. What you responded to was a long way of saying "it's opinion", not fact.

[ehrnst]

134. "I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone's demand for "links"

on this particular topic."

Well, that's one way to express outrage at the VERY IDEA of being asked to provide actual backup for one's claims.

Certainly easier than actually doing so, AMIRITE???

[KPN]

139. No easier than the specious attacks on Sanders

that are obviously grounded in long standing bias and disdain.

[ehrnst]

141. "specious attacks on Sanders"

that are obviously grounded in long standing bias and disdain."

By the NIH?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

and maths?

"....the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate..."

They're saying that "north of 500,000" people includes the multiple people in a family unit. In other words, considering the average number of people in a family unit is 2.3 (wife and/or children) that 500,000 people translates to 217,000 bankruptcies, far fewer than the 500,000 being claimed.

[KPN]

143. My ... you really do have a strong disdain for

the person who has probably been the most aggressive champion of genuine progressive economic policy over the past 20 or so years. Make this about me if it suits you. I stand up for Bernie and stand by the views i’ve expressed. Another opinion doesn’t equate to a lie by Sanders as has been claimed here.

[ehrnst]

144. Got nothing?

most aggressive champion of genuine progressive economic policy over the past 20 or so years.

You mean like founding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

Oh wait...

https://www.salon.com/2015/05/23/elizabeth_warren_is_winning_how_the_progressive_icon_is_remaking_politics_without_running_for_president/


Of course any dissent WHATSOEVER from the manifesto must be relegated to "opinion" and can't POSSIBLY be based in fact.





Honey, I talk a lot about genuine agressive progressive economic policy, but I expect a whole lot more - you know - ACTION and accomplishments from a career politician with 25+ years on Capitol Hill.

[sheshe2]

153. Oh snap.

[ehrnst]

145. So, why exactly are you NOT supporting "the person who has probably been the most aggressive

champion of genuine progressive economic policy over the past 20 or so years" as you claim, for POTUS?

Disdain?

[KPN]

169. No. There are a couple of other candidates whose

views align with mine but are likely more electable in 2020 than Sanders in my estimation.

I am concerned about electability; it’s a big factor for me.

[melman]

146. It's not about the person

It's about the policy. They like to make it about Bernie because it's convenient for them.

The real agenda is something different. You'll notice all the same people hate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

[ehrnst]

149. Let's review who's 'making it about Bernie..."

melman (5,057 posts)

111. Exactly

That's what makes this so ugly. Trying to minimize this horror for cheap political points.

[betsuni]

164. Not about policy.

Information from the American National Election Studies found that Sanders supporters were actually less likely to favor concrete policies, more likely to be pessimistic about economic inequality and economic opportunity.

"People who became Sanders supporters were no more likely than people who became Clinton supporters to favor government-provided universal health care or tax increases on the wealthy -- although they were somewhat more likely to favor government regulation of business. Combining these three questions into an economic policy index showed Sanders and Clinton supporters to be only 0.02 points apart on a 0-1 scale. ... In the American National Election Studies Pilot Study, Clinton and Sanders supporters did not differ much in their views of government spending, spending on health insurance or child-care, or raising the minimum wage."

From "Identity Crisis"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html

[KPN]

174. Agreed -- the usual suspects.

[sheshe2]

152. Do you have time to post the links?

Links to what legislation that he proposed and has passed in his long establishment career as a politician that has helped the working and middle class? I am not talking about what he says. I am talking about what he has accomplished.

Ideas are cool...passing and making them work is a whole other ball of wax. It is hard work.

[ehrnst]

154. That's IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has TALKED AGREESIVELY about the same things for YEARS!!!

There are memes with his quotes and stuff on twitter and facebook!!

[sheshe2]

156. I feel chastised. :(

Words matter more...

[KPN]

175. To you. Not to me and many others -- perhaps more than not.

[George II]

162. So tell us, what "genuine progressive economic policy" has he gotten enacted "over the past....

....20 or so years"? I'll make it easier, since he's been in Washington since 1991, let's expand that to 28 years.

Any?

[sheshe2]

165. Whatever you do.

Do Not Hold Your Breath.

[George II]

166. ...

[sheshe2]

171. +++++++++++++++++++++

[KPN]

176. Look up his amendments, there are a lot -- if you really are interested. I'm not your gofer George.

Not to mention how many harmful pieces of legislation he has opposed and ultimately voted against over that time-frame. More opposition to many of them and they might not have been so harmful.

[melman]

147. "maths"

Interesting.

[ehrnst]

148. Yes they are, to those of us who value facts anyway.

FYI - Data is also plural. You're welcome.

[sheshe2]

158. definition

maths
[maTHs]

NOUN
BRITISH
mathematics.
"her mother was a maths teacher"
synonyms:
arithmetical problem · problem · calculation · reckoning · tally · question · arithmetic · mathematics · figures · numbers · computation · math

You're welcome.

[KPN]

177. Well, we're not in British or in Britain now are we?

[ehrnst]

178. Don't feel bad. Lots of people make the mistake of trying to correct someone

who's actually right.

[sheshe2]

180. You are telling me that all posters on DU live in the US?

We have many posters that live outside of this country. Some are citizens and some have dual citizenship. We have a diverse group here. Are you saying that those that live elsewhere are not allowed to post words used in the county they live in?

You certainly are not saying that now are you?

[George II]

160. Links?

[sheshe2]

161. ;)

[KPN]

179. Links?? Okay ...

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263310|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263489|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263836|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=264830|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=264962|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=265025|

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=265145|

Let me know if you want more.

[George II]

170. Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

142. Still waiting on backup for this "specious" claim....

[George II]

18. The media is "ignoring" him, but....

...last week he was on MSNBC FOUR times, CNN at least once, he'll be on "The View" tomorrow (their first guest of the new season) and he'll be on "Late Night" on Thursday. There may very well have been more, they are only those that I've heard of.

That's at least six times in the span of nine days. If that's being ignored, I wonder how many times he'd be on if he wasn't ignored.

[sheshe2]

82. I would loved to be ignored that way.

[Wawannabe]

58. Lol

Love this!

Ffs go AWAY Bernie

[MrsCoffee]

7. Indeed.

[thesquanderer]

8. So you think WaPo's version of this is correct?

I don't usually watch videos, but it's described pretty well in this article...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/

[questionseverything]

76. ty for the article..i prefer reading too...from the article

“whopper” per the Post. So what’s the matter with the statistic? As it turns out: Nothing much at all.
Sanders’s team told the Post that the Vermont Senator was relying on an estimate published in a medical journal that found that 66.5% of bankruptcy filers cited either medical bills or missed work due to illness as a reason they went broke. The journal itself said this was “equivalent to about 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually.”
At first glance, it appears Bernie understated the problem by rounding down. The checker did an admirable thing and reached out to the author of the study, Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor of public health in the CUNY system and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. “When we asked Himmelstein whether Sanders was quoting his study accurately,” the fact checker reports, “he said yes.”
Himmelstein went on to unpack for the fact checker that, even if you were to adopt a more limited measure of bankruptcies that were “very much” linked to medical debt, the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate — or an underestimate,” Himmelstein said.

[Gothmog]

9. According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct

Link to tweet

In this case, The Post's fact-check mentioned that some critics believe that Sanders' use of the 500,000 figure — which was from an editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health — was perhaps casting "too wide a net." The fact-check said that the actual study published in the journal surveyed people who had gone bankrupt in part due to medical bills, not necessarily entirely because of their medical bills.

"Sanders glosses over those nuances, stating that health-care costs drove people to bankruptcy in all 500,000 cases. The study he's citing doesn't establish that," The Post's article said. …..

In a response shared with Business Insider, the Post's managing editor Cameron Barr wrote to Gunnels that the points of contention raised by the Sanders campaign don't hold up.

"That study did not seek to determine what causes bankruptcies, only factors that contribute to them. On this basis alone, the statements by Sen. Sanders are misleading," Barr wrote.

Barr also denied the "pattern of bias" against Sanders that his campaign claimed, writing that it was "categorically false."

"Though the Sanders campaign may not like some of our coverage, it has been fair, professional and accurate," he wrote.

[KPN]

11. This attitude is exactly why we don't always get out the vote. Poo-pawing or downplaying

the facts when they don't fit one's world view (is it neo-lib or just corporate bias?) doesn't win over young voters in particular who see and feel first hand the results our two party system have yielded over the past 40 years relative to their and their cohort's lives and prospects.

This article provides zero basis for calling Sanders use of the number 500,000 false. Basically, it says, well because he didn't consider virtually everything that could have contributed to every one of those people's bankruptcies, his statement is false -- "categorically false" no less. The bias is breath-taking -- as is yours in this case.

[Gothmog]

12. The Washington Post read the underlying study which is part of fact checking

In the real world, one reads the underlying study to see if the study supports the claims made. The Washington Post read the actual study and found that the actual study did not support the claims made. That is how fact checking works in the real world

[KPN]

13. In the real world, one needs to keep an open mind in order to tell the difference betwen

fact and fiction.

[Gothmog]

14. Fact checking means checking the facts

Here the Washington Post read the underlying study on which the claim was based. That study does not support that claim. That is how fact checking works in the real world. I have no problem with the fact checking done by the Washington Post

[KPN]

19. The underlying facts were that 530000+ people went bankrupt

because of medical costs. Absent those, they would most likely not have according to the original study. Anyone trying to undermine these facts in particular, I.e., the devastating costs of medical care to hundreds of thousands annually in America, is favoring bias over facts.

[George II]

22. Yes, that's the fact that is being used - 530,000 PEOPLE went bankrupt, ....

...including the spouse and any children involved. That would greatly reduce the number of "bankruptcies" from 500,000.

If the generally accepted average family unit is 2.3 and the number of people affected is 530,000, that would reduce the number of bankruptcies to 231,000 (530,000 divided by 2.3)

"People" do not equal "bankruptcies".

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. I am less concerned with the number, because it surely is a problem, and more

worried about WHO can fix it or make it better.

WHO has a track record of working with others well and compromise and so on?

[KPN]

30. Now that is a reasonable statement and one

I can appreciate and respect regarding this particular dispute. Truth be told, I’m 99% sure I won’t be voting for Bernie in the primary. At the same time, I admire and support his tenacity in making Americans aware of the gross inequities we have been creating in our economic system the past 40 years — including speaking out about them now during this primary campaign. I support anyone who aggressively daylights this general issue.

[ehrnst]

31. I am concerned if someone who claims they can fix a problem gets their numbers wrong

concerning the problem....

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. YEAH I hear you, I do...But imagine if he actually did win, is he going to change his

personality overnight and become someone else?

No.

So it all comes down to WHO can get shit done, and he would be at the bottom of the list and that is backed up by his record.

BUT, I will support him if he is the nominee.

[KPN]

28. Oh brother. Ridiculous.

[George II]

33. What's ridiculous about it? Care to share with us all?

[KPN]

34. I already have above. Several times.

[ehrnst]

68. That's one way to avoid the question. (nt)

[ehrnst]

150. Invincible Ignorance Fallacy:

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

[Gothmog]

24. The study cited does not support that claim according to the Washington Post

The Washington Post actually read the study cited. That study does not support the claim that all of these bankruptcies were due to medical bills in the world. Medical bills were one fact but the study itself listed other facts. Fact checking means checking the facts which is what the Washington Post did. The post described why the claims made were not supported by the facts.

I agree with the fact checking by the Washington Post

[KPN]

32. Oh really. Well, why don't you go ahead and

share those specific facts? There were none as far as I can tell except something approximating “there’s other stuff that contributed to some of those bankruptcies.” What was that other stuff? Where’s the beef?

[Gothmog]

53. The study stated that bankruptcies were due to more than one condition

Medical bills were one condition cited in the study but the study also mentioned other conditions including loss of employment that are causal factors in persons filing bankruptcies. No one condition described in the study was responsible for all of the bankruptcies which is why the Washington Post fact checkers issued their opinion that the claim that medical bills were solely responsible for all of the bankruptcies cited in the study. Again, the Washington Post actually read study that was supposedly the basis of the claim and found that the study did not support that claim.

Fact checking is important and we are lucky that the Washington Post is good at this job.

[ehrnst]

96. Indeed. (nt)

[ehrnst]

98. If a politician is going to use numbers to support their case, the numbers should be correct.

Credibility is something one earns, it's not bestowed as if truth is defined by one's utterances.

Well, for most it isn't.

[ehrnst]

29. Apparently some candidates are considered "exempt' from fact checking

that doesn't flatter them.

[questionseverything]

77. incorrect

“whopper” per the Post. So what’s the matter with the statistic? As it turns out: Nothing much at all.
Sanders’s team told the Post that the Vermont Senator was relying on an estimate published in a medical journal that found that 66.5% of bankruptcy filers cited either medical bills or missed work due to illness as a reason they went broke. The journal itself said this was “equivalent to about 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually.”
At first glance, it appears Bernie understated the problem by rounding down. The checker did an admirable thing and reached out to the author of the study, Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor of public health in the CUNY system and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. “When we asked Himmelstein whether Sanders was quoting his study accurately,” the fact checker reports, “he said yes.”
Himmelstein went on to unpack for the fact checker that, even if you were to adopt a more limited measure of bankruptcies that were “very much” linked to medical debt, the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate — or an underestimate,” Himmelstein said.

[LanternWaste]

15. A thing is either accurate or it is not.

Bias, indeed...

[KPN]

20. Yup. It's accurate -- like global warming is

accurate though there are those who can find imperfections that justify declaring it false.

[ehrnst]

93. No, global warming is supported by facts. The WAPO piece is like climate science

and the ones calling the fact check a hoax are relying on bias, not facts.

[George II]

16. I would venture to guess that more voters are turned off by candidates exaggerating....

..."facts" to back up their proposals than finding out the real facts.

As for the article, perhaps the article "provides zero basis for calling Sanders use of the number 500,000 false" (that is debatable), but on the other hand Sanders has provided zero basis for saying the number 500,000 is true.

In fact, he came out a day or two later on twitter saying that it might be closer to 750,000, which is preposterous. In fiscal 2017 (through June 2018) there were only 780,000 bankruptcies so that would mean 96% of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses?

Remember, his first statement was due to medical expenses AND loss of jobs due to medical conditions. Then he dropped the loss of jobs, then he said the number was higher than 500,000. All of this with zero credible statistics to prove his numbers.

If he could provide a credible source of research that confirms any of his numbers this would all go away in a minute.

The truth is not biased.

[KPN]

21. As viewed from an obviously biased perspective.

[George II]

35. In what way is the perspective biased? Where are the REAL numbers specifically? I don't see them.

[KPN]

36. How about look at the study.

[George II]

37. I did. With an OPEN mind.

[KPN]

40. So what are those specific facts?

[George II]

43. As I said:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263688

[KPN]

109. ...

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=263691|

[ehrnst]

104. Well...

Illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007,” according to the study from 2009. (Again, the term used here is “contributed” and not “caused.”)

If one says that Trump rhetoric "caused" the deaths of the people in the El Paso shooting, one would be wrong, because there were other factors, availability of the weapons. If you say that Trumps's rhetoric 'contributes' to extreme actions by those already predisposed to violence who have access to weapons, then you have a more accurate statement.

"....the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate..."

They're saying that "north of 500,000" people includes the multiple people in a family unit. In other words, considering the average number of people in a family unit is 2.3 (wife and/or children) that 500,000 people translates to 217,000 bankruptcies, far fewer than the 500,000 being claimed.

This gives the GOP ammunition to claim that someone who makes these statements is a "liar," no matter the validity of whatever point they are trying to make.

Also:

The study gives break downs of various age ranges of those dealing with medical bankruptcy. In the end, they feel the numbers of medical bankruptcies is overstated.

"Policymakers’ beliefs about the frequency of medical bankruptcies are based primarily on two high-profile articles that claim that medical events cause approximately 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States. In these studies, people who had gone bankrupt were asked whether they’d experienced health-related financial stress such as substantial medical bills or income loss due to illness. People were also asked whether they went bankrupt due to medical bills. People who reported any of these events were described as having experienced a medical bankruptcy. This approach assumes that whenever a person who reports having substantial medical bills experiences a bankruptcy, the bankruptcy was caused by the medical debt. The fact that, according to a 2014 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about 20% of Americans have substantial medical debt yet in a given year less than 1% of Americans file for personal bankruptcy suggests that this assumption is problematic. Clearly, many people face medical debt but do not go bankrupt. Even after correcting for overly broad definitions of “medical” expenses, the existing, widely cited evidence on medical bankruptcy is built on the fallacy that when two things occur together there is necessarily a causal relationship between them."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

[KPN]

108. Okay, pick bones between contributed and caused if you like. The point being contributed has the

same effect on the individual. I guess their mortgage, food, clothing, student loans, child care expenses, furnishings, etc., also "contributed" which means we can't be alarmed at the number of people for whom health care costs "contributed" to their bankruptcy. Got it.

[ehrnst]

110. Contributed to, and causality are not mere 'bones' when it comes to statistics.

I guess their mortgage, food, clothing, student loans, child care expenses, furnishings, etc., also "contributed" which means we can't be alarmed at the number of people for whom health care costs "contributed" to their bankruptcy. Got it.

You must have found a huge sale on straw men. I haven't defended any that you've set up and attacked so far - why do you think I'm going to start now?

[KPN]

113. Oh, like carbon emissions relative to global warming.

Now I get it.

[ehrnst]

115. Actually, not the same thing at all.

Nice try, though.

I'm talking about statistics that are being misrepresented as causal, when in fact that are contributory.

Is that clearer?

[melman]

111. Exactly

That's what makes this so ugly. Trying to minimize this horror for cheap political points.

[KPN]

112. Thank you. It is ugly and unbecoming.

I wouldn’t mind if there was a substantive logic track but in this particular case it strikes me as a lot like the “logic track” used in global warming denial.

[ehrnst]

117. Ugly and unbecoming is attacking the messenger.

And no, fact checking and accuracy in citing studies, isn't like the 'logic track" used in global warming denial - you've got it backwards.

When someone misrepresents data, however well meaning they might be, to create more urgency for a very real problem like climate change being manmade, or medical debt crushing people, that's when those who think those are hoaxes gain ammunition to discredit the whole notion.

What those who think they are hoaxes can do with that ammunition "they're LYING" is the truly the ugliest thing of all, because it sets back real efforts to make change. Sometimes irreparably.

Remember "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"

Look it up if you don't.

I happen to care about actually advancing health care reform, rising medical costs and climate change more than I care about any particular politicians' ego.

[ehrnst]

116. You mean correcting Bernie's statistics is what you think is ugly.

Shooting the messenger is preferable.

Got it.

Are you saying that the corrected statistics don't support his claim that medical debt is crushing people? Because that's what it sounds like.

[KPN]

118. Now there's a euphemism ... "correcting" something that was in my very educated opinion

correct enough in the first place.

Go ahead -- attack away.

[ehrnst]

119. Your very educated opinion doesn't outweigh this groups' collective very educated opinion

Policymakers’ beliefs about the frequency of medical bankruptcies are based primarily on two high-profile articles that claim that medical events cause approximately 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States. In these studies, people who had gone bankrupt were asked whether they’d experienced health-related financial stress such as substantial medical bills or income loss due to illness. People were also asked whether they went bankrupt due to medical bills. People who reported any of these events were described as having experienced a medical bankruptcy. This approach assumes that whenever a person who reports having substantial medical bills experiences a bankruptcy, the bankruptcy was caused by the medical debt. The fact that, according to a 2014 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about 20% of Americans have substantial medical debt yet in a given year less than 1% of Americans file for personal bankruptcy suggests that this assumption is problematic. Clearly, many people face medical debt but do not go bankrupt. Even after correcting for overly broad definitions of “medical” expenses, the existing, widely cited evidence on medical bankruptcy is built on the fallacy that when two things occur together there is necessarily a causal relationship between them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

Also there is math:

That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies, which includes family members of the person who declared bankruptcy.

At 2.3 people per family unit, that translates to between 217,000 - 230,000 bankruptcies. Less than half the purported 500,000 - 530,000.

That's not to say that it still isn't a huge problem. It's just that Sanders got his numbers wrong, and he's angry about being fact checked, and people are calling it an attack on the whole notion of medical debt being a huge issue. That's like the gun nuts saying that any regulation = BANNING.

If NRA was to make that kind of error representing the data when talking about the crimes stopped by "good guys with guns" we would rightly be calling that out.

I'm sorry if that "attack" of factual backup hurt in any way.

[melman]

121. No

That's not what I mean, you don't got it and it really doesn't sound like that at all.

[ehrnst]

124. Yes

That really sounds exactly like what you mean, I got it and it really does sound like that.

Your words, yes?

Trying to minimize this horror for cheap political points.

Pretty much exactly saying that if one doubts the accuracy of his numbers it's minimizing the entire concept of crushing medical debt (this horror).

Also, what is "cheap political points" referring to, and who is "scoring them" or "benefiting" from said "political points."

Because that really sounds like you believe that fact checking Sanders = attacking him. But do clarify.

[Gothmog]

25. Facts are facts and the Washington Post did its job in checking the facts

[Uncle Joe]

26. No, they lied. WAPO said the study that Bernie used was not peer reviewed and in fact it was,

not to mention they had used the same study in previous reporting and didn't seem to have a problem with it then.

[Gothmog]

27. I trust the Washington Post here

The study cited does not support the claims made. Medical expenses are one cause but NOT the only cause of these bankruptcies.

Fact checking is important and I am glad that the Washington Post checks the facts by actually reading the studies in question

[ehrnst]

41. Indeed. Far more than an opinion piece by Krystal Ball. (nt)

[Gothmog]

51. I was disappointed in that piece by Krystal Ball

[George II]

38. They "lied"? They didn't have a problem with it but they clearly looked at it more objectively.

[Thekaspervote]

54. If the WaPo made a mistake I'm sure they will make a retraction

[lapucelle]

80. WaPo published an update today. They are standing by their Three-Pinocchio rating.

Update, Sept. 3: The Sanders campaign objected to this fact check, as did the key researchers of the AJPH editorial. Please see the response below by Himmelstein and his colleague Steffie Woolhandler. We stand by our Three-Pinocchio rating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/

[lapucelle]

79. That's not what WaPo said.

Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March.

The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.

“In AJPH, many editorials are commissioned by the editor-in-chief from experts in their field(s), as a forum to present their most recent or preliminary findings on specific topics, or to coincide with significant dates or events,” said Morgan Richardson, an AJPH editor. “Lack of peer review does not indicate inaccuracy, but editorials are less likely to be cited in the scientific literature as evidence because the standard of rigor is different due to context.”

However, Himmelstein used a methodology similar to what he, Warren and other researchers used in a 2005 peer-reviewed study that they updated in 2009. Warren was a co-author of those two studies, but not the AJPH editorial published in March.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/

[ehrnst]

91. There you go, bringing facts into this....

[Uncle Joe]

107. Regarding peer review

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

163. WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed.

Himmelstein is confusing the editorial he published in 2019, cited by BS and fact checked by WaPo with a study he co-authored a decade ago.

Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March.

The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.

“In AJPH, many editorials are commissioned by the editor-in-chief from experts in their field(s), as a forum to present their most recent or preliminary findings on specific topics, or to coincide with significant dates or events,” said Morgan Richardson, an AJPH editor. “Lack of peer review does not indicate inaccuracy, but editorials are less likely to be cited in the scientific literature as evidence because the standard of rigor is different due to context.”

However, Himmelstein used a methodology similar to what he, Warren and other researchers used in a 2005 peer-reviewed study that they updated in 2009. Warren was a co-author of those two studies, but not the AJPH editorial published in March.

******************************************************************************************

The study was published in 2005 and updated and re-published 2009. Both iterations were peer reviewed and both were co-authored by Elizabeth Warren.

The editorial that BS cited was published in 2019. It was not co-authored by Elizabeth Warren and it was not peer reviewed.

BS was relying on the information in the editorial (not the peer-reviewed studies co-authored by Elizabeth Warren) when he made the claims that earned him a Three Pinocchios rating.

As for any alleged besmirching of anyone's reputation, my advice to the good doctor would be to go back and carefully re-read what the fact check article actually says.

*****************************************************************************************

Update, Sept. 3: The Sanders campaign objected to this fact check, as did the key researchers of the AJPH editorial. Please see the response below by Himmelstein and his colleague Steffie Woolhandler. We stand by our Three-Pinocchio rating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/?noredirect=on

*****************************************************************************************

The peer reviewed study by David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD, Elizabeth Warren, JD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH:

https://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf#page=3

The editorial by David U. Himmelstein MD, Robert M. Lawless JD, Deborah Thorne PhD, Pamela Foohey JD, and Steffie Woolhandler MD, MPH that BS cited:

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901

[thesquanderer]

173. re: "According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct..."

Did you notice that the relevant "facts in the article"--which you actually quoted--came from "the Post's managing editor Cameron Barr"?

People have made their arguments on both sides, but "this article" is not exactly an independent rebuttal.
It's based on quoting the Post taking the Post's side. "According to the Washington Post, the Washington Post is correct" is not the most persuasive argument.

[myohmy2]

44. 500,000?

...no, 530,000 medical bankruptcies...plus a peer reviewed study...mostly false???

...of course Bernie's right...

...the man knows what he's talking about while WAPO lies...

...you can't beat Bernie...

...the dude abides...

[Uncle Joe]

47. Bernie does abide.

[George II]

69. That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies...

...which includes family members of the person who declared bankruptcy.

At 2.3 people per family unit, that translates to between 217,000 - 230,000 bankruptcies. Less than half the purported 500,000 - 530,000.

[ehrnst]

99. "...you can't beat Bernie..."

Well, actually....



I can't imagine someone less like the Dude, either.

[ehrnst]

46. About The Hill.

Since you're very much a supporter of scrutinizing sources, you'll certainly find this interesting:

A group of newsroom staffers at The Hill have complained to management about stories written by John Solomon, the publication’s executive vice president of digital video. The complaints were launched in December when Solomon and reporter Alison Spann broke a story under this headline: “Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers.”

The gist of Solomon and Spann’s story: Prominent California lawyer Lisa Bloom worked to secure payments for women who “made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race.” The story cited “documents and interviews,” plus the on-the-record explanations by Bloom herself.

The story impressed the conservative media world. Fox News host Sean Hannity called it a “bombshell report,” while conservative websites aggregated away. A New York Times story two weeks later noted that accuser-financing arrangements weren’t invented for the Trump era: Paula Jones’s harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton received funding from the Rutherford Institute.

...............................................................................................

As this blog has noted, a Solomon-Spann collaboration in October on the Uranium One deal lit up conservative media, with the aid of a plume of smoke and a warehouse full of mirrors. It appears to make the argument that the Justice Department quasi-covered up an important criminal case by . . . issuing a press release.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/17/staffers-at-the-hill-press-management-about-the-work-of-john-solomon/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/10/24/the-hills-flimsy-russia-uranium-story-lands-with-maximum-effect/

And certainly Krystal Ball trashes the Democratic Party enough that many find her to be that much more credible, yes? Well, being hot doesn't hurt either.

[Uncle Joe]

49. What does WAPO have to say about Rolling Stone?

The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something

(snip)

Sanders’s team told the Post that the Vermont Senator was relying on an estimate published in a medical journal that found that 66.5% of bankruptcy filers cited either medical bills or missed work due to illness as a reason they went broke. The journal itself said this was “equivalent to about 530,000 medical bankruptcies annually.”

At first glance, it appears Bernie understated the problem by rounding down. The checker did an admirable thing and reached out to the author of the study, Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor of public health in the CUNY system and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. “When we asked Himmelstein whether Sanders was quoting his study accurately,” the fact checker reports, “he said yes.”

Himmelstein went on to unpack for the fact checker that, even if you were to adopt a more limited measure of bankruptcies that were “very much” linked to medical debt, the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate — or an underestimate,” Himmelstein said.

(snip)

Subjecting political speechmaking to this kind of nitpick is folly. The entire nature of the political enterprise is looser than that. Politicians speak to broad systemic problems. If they’re sharp and persuasive, they have statistics at hand. And if their staff is any good, those statistics have reputable studies to back them up. By any meaningful measure what Sanders said is accurate for the purposes of the project. If citing a study accurately enough to satisfy its author still gets a “mostly false,” it’s hard to know what could possibly pass muster.

(snip)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287258720

[George II]

66. According to Himmelstein, the author of the study:

"....the number of people going broke is still north of 500,000 a year, because a single bankruptcy typically affects multiple people in a family unit. “Even if you use that restricted definition, then Sanders’s statement is accurate..."

They're saying that "north of 500,000" people includes the multiple people in a family unit. In other words, considering the average number of people in a family unit is 2.3 (wife and/or children) that 500,000 people translates to 217,000 bankruptcies, far fewer than the 500,000 being claimed.

[ehrnst]

67. Yep. (nt)

[ehrnst]

97. Another evasion of the actual question. No surprise. But since you brought it up....

Tim Dickinson, devout Sanders supporter accuses WAPO of gunning for Sanders.... because of course it is....

[melman]

55. "Well, being hot doesn't hurt either. "

Are you saying an attractive woman can't be good at her job? That's an interesting take.

[ehrnst]

70. Not my take, but if that's where your head's at....

[melman]

83. Oh I think it is your take

You said people only take her seriously because she's good looking. And then you mocked her with a cheerleading gif.


That's extremely sexist.

[sheshe2]

84. Hmmm....not who she was mocking...................................

……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..

............................................sexist.....................................

[ehrnst]

88. +1000

[ehrnst]

89. No, not what I said, and not who I was mocking at all.

Pro tip: Simply repeating something several times doesn't make it a fact.

[sheshe2]

181. Hook. Line.

And Sinker.

[Thekaspervote]

57. Here's an article from the NCBI published in The New England Journal of Medicine- peer reviewed

The study gives break downs of various age ranges of those dealing with medical bankruptcy. In the end, they feel the numbers of medical bankruptcies is overstated.

More at the link..if you care to open it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

[ehrnst]

71. Damn corporate media!! They're just threatened by...

Oh wait...

[Thekaspervote]

78. Ntl Cntr of Biotech info with a peer reviewed paper published in The New England Journal of

Medicine... is as scientifically strict and unbiased as they come.

But oh wait... you wouldn’t have known that...right?

[ehrnst]

95. Are you saying that this paper is more accurate than

a Politician running for office?

SHAME ON YOU!!!

[Hoyt]

62. Not a Sanders fan for numerous reasons, but too many financial hardships are caused by health costs.

That’s a fact.

[ehrnst]

72. If a Pol is going to quote numbers, that pol needs to be sure that those numbers are correct.

Otherwise, one should just say " too many financial hardships are caused by health costs."

[Hoyt]

75. He was close enough. It's not like we need action only when it's over 500K.

Now when you get into the cost of Medicare-for-All, both Warren and Sanders need to be accurate.

[ehrnst]

94. "Close enough" isn't going to cut it in the age of the internet and fact checks.

If a candidate is going to whip out numbers to support their claim, using incorrect numbers undermines their credibility.

If he had spoken in general terms, he could have avoided all this.

[comradebillyboy]

85. I go to Krystal Ball when I want an ubiased analysis

[comradebillyboy]

86. I think the Washington Post has a lot more credibility than either

Krystal Ball or Bernie Sanders.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. Seems like a lot of energy spent arguing about a factoid in a campaign speech.

[ehrnst]

92. If one is going to make a point with facts, it's sort of important that they be facts

and not factoids.

[Hoyt]

100. Are you equally concerned by Factcheck.org's finding that Warren's Wealth Tax will yield only 40%

of what she's claiming as the funding source for all these:

-Universal child care for every child age 0 to 5.
-Universal pre-K for every 3- and 4-year old.
-Raise wages for all child care workers and preschool teachers “to the professional levels that they deserve.”
-Free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges.
-$50 billion for historically black colleges and universities.
-Forgive student loan debt for 95% of those with such debt.
-$100 billion over 10 years to combat the opioid crisis.
-“Down payments” on a Green New Deal and Medicare for All
-and More

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/facts-on-warrens-wealth-tax-plan/

[ehrnst]

101. Concerned?

From the link:

But some economists think that assumption is too rosy.

While neither the Tax Policy Center nor the Tax Foundation has yet released a full analysis of Warren’s plan, economists at both said there is reason to believe Warren’s revenue estimate is too high.

Warren did not attempt to back up a statment using statistics that can be verified - this is an estimate of savings in a plan that has not been completely analyzed. Not factoids or statistics, such as Sanders proffered.

I hope that clarifies the difference between the OP and your factcheck you shared.

I assume you're equally concerned with the Urban Institute's full analysis of Sanders' 2016 M4A proposal?

[Hoyt]

102. I said earlier I am not a Sander's fan and I am positive he's wrong about the cost of M4A.

But, I think he made a good point about medical bankruptcies, even if his stats are a little off or difficult to prove.

Warren, like Sanders, is promising us a lot with questionable funding sources to avoid saying, "Everyone, but the poorest, will be paying for this, hopefully less than what we in the aggregate are paying now."

[ehrnst]

103. "if his stats are a little off or difficult to prove."

Actually, they were easy to disprove. If one is going to use verfiable statistics in a statement, one is staking one's credibility on whether those are correct. Unless of course one decides to attack the credibility of those who fact check instead, as Sanders seems to have done. Had he simply said, "I stand corrected on the statistics, and my point about medical bankruptcies still stands," he would be a much, much better candidate. But can you imagine "I stand corrected" ever being uttered by Senator standards?

He could have made that point about medical bankruptcies without using specific numbers, but that wouldn't have given it the air of authoritative research, would it?

Warren, like Sanders, is promising us a lot with questionable funding sources to avoid saying, "Everyone, but the poorest, will be paying for this, hopefully less than what we in the aggregate are paying now."

I await Warren's plan, as she doesn't find it distasteful to consult with experts, or change her mind when she gets new data. She respects expertise and doesn't overreact to fact checking.

I get tired of Trump surrogates telling people to listen to "what he means" instead of "what he says," and I don't particularly care to extend patience to any other politcian who cries foul when fact checked.

[Hoyt]

105. I get tired of all candidates promising the world with questionable funding sources.

I'm fine with one making a point about too many people going into bankruptcy because of medical costs, whether it's 500K, 200K, 50K.

[ehrnst]

106. Well, this OP is about a candidate using faulty statistics to make a point.

When they play loose with the actual statistics, then they aren't making a case that they have done the research necessary to address the problem.

And yes, one candidate in particular is known for promising the world with questionable funding sources.

[DanTex]

114. Bernie is right about this. I'm not necessarily a Bernie supporter, but I don't like to see stupid

false attacks on Dems.

[ehrnst]

120. What "stupid false attack?" Fact checking?

Policymakers’ beliefs about the frequency of medical bankruptcies are based primarily on two high-profile articles that claim that medical events cause approximately 60% of all bankruptcies in the United States. In these studies, people who had gone bankrupt were asked whether they’d experienced health-related financial stress such as substantial medical bills or income loss due to illness. People were also asked whether they went bankrupt due to medical bills. People who reported any of these events were described as having experienced a medical bankruptcy. This approach assumes that whenever a person who reports having substantial medical bills experiences a bankruptcy, the bankruptcy was caused by the medical debt. The fact that, according to a 2014 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about 20% of Americans have substantial medical debt yet in a given year less than 1% of Americans file for personal bankruptcy suggests that this assumption is problematic. Clearly, many people face medical debt but do not go bankrupt. Even after correcting for overly broad definitions of “medical” expenses, the existing, widely cited evidence on medical bankruptcy is built on the fallacy that when two things occur together there is necessarily a causal relationship between them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

Also there is math:

That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies, which includes family members of the person who declared bankruptcy.

At 2.3 people per family unit, that translates to between 217,000 - 230,000 bankruptcies. Less than half the purported 500,000 - 530,000.

That's not to say that it still isn't a huge problem. It's just that Sanders got his numbers wrong, and he's angry about being fact checked, and people are calling it an attack on the whole notion of medical debt being a huge issue. That's like the gun nuts saying that any regulation = BANNING.

If NRA was to make that kind of error representing the data when talking about the crimes stopped by "good guys with guns" we would rightly be calling that out.

[DanTex]

122. The study Bernie cited found 530,000 medical bankruptcies, not people.

http://www.pnhp.org/docs/AJPHBankruptcy2019.pdf

Table 1 displays debtors’ responses regarding the (often multiple) contributors to their bankruptcy. The majority (58.5%) “very much” or “somewhat” agreed that medical expenses contributed, and 44.3% cited illness-related work loss; 66.5% cited at least one of these two medical contributors—equivalent to about 530 000 medical bankruptcies annually.

Those 530,000 bankruptcies, at a rate of 2.3 people per family unit, comes up to over 1 million individuals a year. So I guess Bernie could be accused of grossly underestimating the number of individuals affected.

On top of that, the authors of that study actually agreed with Bernie's statement citing their number.

You're linking to a different study that comes up with a smaller number. That's fine, I'm sure there are other studies too. But Bernie cited a peer-reviewed article from respected experts in the field.

[ehrnst]

123. The link is for the excerpt above it. (nt)

[brush]

128. This keeps getting posted but there's a paywall on WAPO and no paragraphs at...

all from the story. At least post a couple of graphs so we know what this is about.

[sheshe2]

167. Thanks for the thread, Uncle Joe.

Peace to you.

[Uncle Joe]

168. Thank you sheshe.

Peace to you as well.