The assault continues on his credibility. David Catron, Michael Cannon and David Hogberg take their turns.
Related posts:
- Ezra Klein on mainstream media’s fear of Michael Moore
- Ezra Klein thinks he knows medicine . . . but doesn’t
- Catron calls out Ezra Klein
- Stuart Browning beats up on Ezra Klein
- Ezra Klein on the primary care shortage
- Government-run health care = moral superiority?
- Time softballs Michael Moore
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 14 comments }
The David Hogberg article rips him apart and shows Ezra Klein for what he is.
It does seem odd that someone who has the statement “Government health care is the disease, free markets are the cure” doesn’t get singled out for bias. Neither does the Cato institute. Obviously they have no bias at all.
Everyone is biased. Accept it. Embrace it. Get over it.
Ad hominem attacks add nothing to the discussion.
I believe that ad hominem attacks are appropriate at times. For example, noone has to bother reading anything the Fraser Institute puts out since they have shown themselves to be consistent liars. When ad hominem attacks fail is when they have no substance to them. Bottom line, Canada’s healthcare system is better than ours. Acknowledgement of that fact is a litmus test for credibility in any healthcare debate. Until Kevin can admit that, there is no hope that anything he writes can be believed without independent verification. Ditto for anyone else.
So you’re right, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and probably stupid. And to maintain that view, you’ve set up preconditions that will keep you from ever questioning your opinions. Brilliant. Some might say a bit narrow, but I say brilliant. I, for my part, will believe everything you write, without independent verification. After all, Elliott, you are without bias.
Your endorsement of ad hominem attacks does strike a dissonant note, though. Could it be that a man of your undoubted genius would stoop to personal attacks? Doubtless there’s a reason I’m too simple to understand. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect you might be afraid of learning that you were wrong.
Bottom line, Canada’s healthcare system is better than ours. Acknowledgement of that fact is a litmus test for credibility in any healthcare debate.
Wow. Discussion over. There are heretics in our midst.
Just to be clear … if ad hominem attacks are wrong then clearly ad hominem attacks on Ezra Klein are wrong. If everyone agrees with that then fine. If somehow ad hominem attacks on the Cato Institute or David Hogarth are wrong but ad hominem attacks on Ezra Klein are ok then we are in entirely odd territory.
No – ad hominem attacks add nothing to the discussion, regardless of the target.
I read all three articles references in this post, and none of them make ad hominem attacks on Ezra Klein. They all question his credibility on the subject based on the assertions and arguments he made, and their attempts to refute them.
Dismissing the argument because of perceived bias, without actually engaging in the discussion at hand, is an ad hominem attack. Here is one defintition of argumentum ad hominen:
“Criticising a position by calling attention to irrelevant personal characteristics of someone who holds it.” – Such as their biases.
Pointing out a bias in a position, when the author of that postion does not choose to do so, is in fact a public service. It is illuminating to know what interests a person has in the position they espouse.
Having said that, a position is in fact quite different from the person. One can legitimately attack a person’s position on a topic as irrational, and point out potential conflicts in that position, without attacking the person themselves. That is ideally the nature of a debate. To depart from that is to descend to the polemic, and lower.
The discussion isn’t over because we have to fix the US healthcare system or continue to waste a lot of money while providing sub-optimal care. To get upset about the facts and then suggest that it’s a reason to not work to solve the problem is ridiculous. There’s a reason that the first step in all 12 step programs is acknowledging the failure.
How about this: We admit that US heathcare is seriously messed up providing lower quality care than other nations with universal coverage at costs far higher than those nations. We are powerless to change as long as we keep blaming the lawyers, our patients, the government, the insurance industry, or other doctors.
“…We admit that US heathcare is seriously messed up providing lower quality care than other nations with universal coverage at costs far higher than those nations.”
To represent your opinion as fact is simply not a starting point for a discussion. You’ve already drawn your conclusions, and you want others to endorse them. So why discuss it? You’re not approaching this in a way calculated to win anyone over to your point of view, which is at best contentious. A better starting point would be to acknowledge that people do disagree, look at the reasons why, and debate those reasons based on evidence.
“Bottom line, Canada’s healthcare system is better than ours.”
I hope you never get cancer in Canada Elliot. YOu might find yourself waiting for weeks on end for a radiation slot or chemo. But hey, don’t believe me, unlike you, I actually know whatI am talking about.
So let’s see a show of hands. Who here agrees with the following statement?
“There is nothing seriously wrong with the US healthcare system.”
Count me as a no to start.
Notice how Ezra’s website does not even mention the bloody defeat of his socialist buddy Ms Royal of France. Yet another bloody nose for the neo-socialists in Europe. Ezra’s silence is deafening.
Comments on this entry are closed.