What’s Wrong with this Argument?
Nicholas Kristof still hasn’t mastered the syllogism. In The New York Times, he writes:
The question isn’t: Can we afford to reform health care? Rather: Can we afford not to?
No need to read the entire editorial. I’ll summarize it for you. Like so many others who support ObamaCare, Kristof thinks like this:
| Major Premise: | Without change, the health care system is on a calamitous course. | |
| Minor Premise: | ObamaCare promises change. | |
| Conclusion: | We need ObamaCare. |
Let’s hope that if Kristof ever needs serious medical care his doctors think more clearly than this.
This must be beat up on Kristof day. Not that he doesn’t derserve it — in spades.
Kristof’s reasoning is similar to many other members of the media. He assumes that since the health care system is in desperate need of reform, those who oppose ObamaCare are being obstructionist for political gain. It never seems to dawn on the liberal (or moderate) members of the media that the GOP opposes ObamaCare because it would not solve the three primary problems facing our health care system.
Sad truth is: nobody on the op ed page of the New York Times has the slightest understanding of health care — not even the “conservatives.”
Kristof is in the Times this morning with more nonsense on health care. The thoughts are so disjointed I just coulndn’t finish it.
Saw the editorial Ken. I couldn’t finish it either.
He’s getting almost as bad as Krugman.