I traced it to an AP article in the San Jose Mercury News covering a study done by Harvard Medical School researchers about the effects of different insurance policies on men versus women. Right off the bat I believe the study was biased. Why should it take a Harvard study to conclude that it costs more money to provide women’s health care than men’s? It seems so incredibly obvious to me. Think of how many more reasons a woman has to go to the doctor. Everything from pregnancy to extensive annual exams add up to significantly higher medical costs.

To be clear, I do not deny it requires a lot more money to provide health care for women versus men. I also do not deny that health care is a much larger burden for a single women versus a single man. The problem I have with the study is signified in this quote by the study’s lead author, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler (emphasis mine).

“High-deductible plans punish women for having breasts and uteruses and having babies.”

Read that quote a couple times and really thing about it. Here is the logic as I see it: because a women has to pay more in health costs than a man in order to receive more extensive care than a man she is somehow being punished. That is like saying that people who have poor vision are being punished by optometrists because they actually have to pay for eye exams and glasses while those who have good vision do not.

I believe one reason we see studies like this is a result of the extensive reach of the feminist movement. When was the last time you saw a study on the unfairness of life insurance policies towards men since they have to pay more for the exact same coverage when compared to woman? Are men being punished because they die younger than women? How unfair is that?

So what is unfair here? Is it that the doctors and hospitals actually want to get paid for what they do? Is it that insurance companies want to be reimbursed for money they pay out? Is it that the employers are looking for the lowest cost in health insurance in order to maximize profit in order to ensure its own existence which allows it to employ people in the first place? Is it that women actually have to pay for what they get?

I think an underlying root problem, which is rampant in the US, is on display here. Many Americans have developed a continually increasing sense of entitlement. According to the Declaration of Independence your entitlements begin and end with “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. There is no mention of health care, food, housing, transportation, or information. Furthermore, any of the three rights actually listed in the Declaration are contingent on you keeping your nose out of other people’s use of their three rights. Your right to life can absolutely be taken away in you infringe on someone else’s right to life.

To paraphrase something I once heard Dave Ramsey say: you only have a right to whatever to get up, go out, kill, and drag home yourself. Other than that, it is not yours and you have no right to it. I would take it a step further. You have no God given right to even take your next breath let alone be provided with health coverage you did not pay for. In the words of John Stossel: “Give me a break.”

That being said there is one caveat: the numbers actually have to represent something coherent. In other words there has to be a basis for the numbers and some way of verifying their accuracy. Unless numbers are precise, or their level of imprecision can be known, they are worse than useless – they actually hinder logical thinking. That is why I am so unconvinced when I see statistics that somehow quantify subjects that are seemingly unknowable. Some of the subjects I am very doubtful about include the age of the earth, the long term influence of certain foods/activities on the body, and the amount of any given substance in the universe.

For example, below is a clip from an article from the NY Times entitled “Slow Down, Brave Multitasker, and Don’t Read This in Traffic”.

The productivity lost by overtaxed multitaskers cannot be measured precisely, but it is probably a lot. Jonathan B. Spira, chief analyst at Basex, a business-research firm, estimates the cost of interruptions to the American economy at nearly $650 billion a year.

That total is an update of research published 18 months ago, based on surveys and interviews with professionals and office workers, which concluded that 28 percent of their time was spent on what they deemed interruptions and recovery time before they returned to their main tasks.

Mr. Spira concedes that the $650 billion figure is a rough estimate — an attempt to attach a number to a big problem. Work interruptions will never — and should not — be eliminated, he said, since they are often how work is done and ideas are shared. After all, one person’s interruption is another’s collaboration.

I found this article by reading an excerpt from it on 43folders.com. The above section was quoted and guess what part made the cut….the first paragraph only. Why is that? Because it includes the juicy number. Besides that fact that the number’s accuracy is in doubt I don’t believe there is even a number to be known. It cannot be quantified. It is like saying “Every year there are 784 trillion minutes spent in wasted conversation.” Apart from the problem that the number cannot be quantified, how can anyone determine what is wasted conversation in order to quantify it? By the way, I absolutely agree with the first sentence of the first paragraph quoted above.

Another quick example: I am supposed to believe the earth’s temperature is going to rise by x degrees in the next fifty years when a meteorologist cannot consistently predict, at 7:30 am, what the high temperature will be, within a range of 7 degrees, that very same day. I realize that climatology and meteorology are two different fields, but many predictions do not have a solid, verifiable basis for their numbers. A meteorologist will predict the high temperature based on past data of typical trends, but he will have to admit there is no absolute way to know what will happen on any given day let alone years away. On a side note, the idea that a 7 degree range can somehow be called a “Three Degree Guarantee” is an absolute farce.

I’ll tell you what is truly unquantifiable – the audacity of many researchers, scientists, archaeologists, climatologists, meteorologists, members of the news media, etc…

This may be a minor example, but it shows how news can be very misleading especially when a title or tag line is used to make the the story appear sensational. This is one of the many reasons I do not watch news on TV. TV only makes the sensationlism even worse when you have the audio and visual working together. I’ve had enough of “Are you safe in your own home??? Find out tonight at 11.” I am convinced that news is no different than most other television. The most entertaining stories are the ones that get published. The newsworthyness of stories is not based on importance, relevance, or necessity but rather what is most likely to grab the attention of the most viewers. A little caution and discretion are often needed.

On a broader note, I think there is a severe lack, especially in news and politics, of an ability to determine cause and effect. Much of it hinges on the inability to distinguish between cause and effect and correlation.  Just because A and B are correlated does not mean that A causes B or vice versa.

Do you think advertisements should be banned from TV channels for children?

The fact that a majority of voters agree with this proposal says a lot to me about the mindset of many Americans, and it is disheartening. The first problem I see with this idea is its direct contradiction to the capitalist economy in which we live. It seems as though no logic was used in this other than: “Commercials may be bad for children so therefore we must get rid of them regardless of consequences.” Also, I wish the word “banned” was further defined so as to indicate who would do the banning. I am sure this authority would go to the government. This brings up the second issue I have with this idea: why do we continue to allow and invite government invasion of our private lives? Just because an idea may be a good one (in this specific case I would argue against even that) is no reason to give the government authority to force it on us. Just because eating healthy and exercising are definitely good ideas does not mean I want a new government agency to enforce them on all Americans. Say NO to the fat police.

I should say that HowStuffWorks.com is run by Marshall Brain so it comes as no suprise to me when I see a question like that from his site. Although he often has very interesting ideas or comments on technology, I would not see him as being a big proponent of individual’s rights. See the following posts from his personal blog as references:

• Funding Robotic Freedom
• British vs. American Health Care

In Sowell’s recent article “Studies prove….” he shows the deception and outright lies that can be told using results of statistical studies. Some of the experiences he shares are eye opening.

Lately I have found myself questioning the validity of facts any time I hear “According to a recent survey…”. I always wonder what proposed theory the facts are being twisted to “prove”. Politicians really love to use surveys and studies to prove their policy or program works. Above all I question survey results in these situations.

Also see “Studies Prove”: Part II and “Studies Prove”: Part III by Sowell.