Talk for Article "Fact check: Sen Dianne Feinstein’s claims about repealing the Affordable Care"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Thank you Mohamed. Please consider my comment to the article “How Can Countries Reduce Poverty Faster? ( https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/key-to-rapid-poverty-reduction-sustainable-development-goals-by-m-niaz-asadullah-and-antonio-savoia-2018-11 )” and tell me what you think.

    That comment start with “This is an approach to poverty reduction that’s based on my systemic vision of institutional innovations on The Wealth of Globalization open to constructive critique where the future is not a continuation of the past, like it is for the 2030 non systemic roadmap on The Wealth of Nations.”

    Edited: 2018-11-15 14:57:08 By José Vanderhorst-Silverio (talk | contribs) + 491 Characters .. + 169% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Hi José Vanderhorst-Silverio, I still can’t see the relevancy of the charts you added, we just need fact check the claim citing trusted and independent sources, but I’m very interested to read your feedback here and see what value these charts would bring?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Thank you Mohamed. The relevancy in the first image is that Health is a Wicked problem. In the second for Wicked problems:

      “…past data are of limited use. For others,analysis can be overwhelmed by too many unknowns, too many stakeholders, too many possibilities, and too little time for data gathering and analysis to be practical. To cap it off, many of the most important factors are not measurable. Perceptions of worth, safety, affordability, political acceptance, environmental impact, public health, and even national security provide no realistic basis for numerical analyses — even if they were not highly variable and uncertain.”

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Alan Purchase (talk | contribs | mute)
    2018-10-30 23:14:36
    Perhaps I can turn that question around. The senator tweeted about “Repealing the mandate means 378,000 fewer Californians will have health care and is responsible for 40% of this year’s rate increase.”

    The article is aiming to fact check those figures i.e. the 378,000 and the 40%.

    Can you explain how the references to Drucker, Goldsmith et al and your vision on electricity clarifies whether Senator Feinstein’s tweet was accurate or not?

    ————————————— the above has not reply option.

    One earlier response:

    Would affordable care be considered an unsustainable ‘wicked problem’ like the energy problem I have addressed? Then a Fact Check that’s limited to the Second Degree of Clarity of the Printing Big Shift won’t help the people. To help the people with sustainable heath care we need to help emerge an institutional innovation that people are not expecting but will love. In that light, please contribute to the project “#GoodNews4GD: #3rdDegreeOfClarity “Evidence-Based Journalism” ( https://www.wikitribune.com/project/goodnews4gd-3rddegreeofclarity-evidence-based-journalism/?revisionID=92265 ).”

    A second earlier response:

    For WikiTribune to serve the communities, it is not about mass media Fact-checking, you, or me being right. It is about adding value with sustainable care. I add that business as usual repealing of the Affordable Care Act without an institutional innovation to introduce the typical kind deregulation will become even more unsustainable. Having said that, the senator’s claim must be classified as fake news.

    A third response:

    It is “accurate,” but invalid. Invalid because it is far from the reality of the communities. “The assumptions on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality,” according to “The Theory of the Business,” by Peter F. Drucker, originally published in September-October 1994, on the Harvard Business Review. Reprint 94506.

    Were you able to read all of the comments before you wrote yours?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Jose, I’m afraid that repeating the same information that you have stated before doesn’t actually answer the question I asked, which is how those responses are relevant to the stated aim of this article, which is the fact checking of some statistics cited by Senator Feinstein.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Thank you for asking again. This time, please only consider the story “For Pope Francis and a few others ‘Realities are more important than ideas.’ ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/for-pope-francis-and-a-few-others-realities-are-more-important-than-ideas-fde07cd2b9d9 ),” You will see that Fact-checking of The Wealth of Nations have a great risks of Fake News for being out of touch with reality.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Hello, Mohamed. I’m fascinated by your fact-check-based reporting. I’ve done some cursory research on the senator’s claims, and they appear to be accurate. Should you disagree with my findings, I’d love to have further discussion.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Hi Fred, great to e-meet you, I’ve checked the important source you cited, I do agree with the first part but did not find any information about the 40% part. but I found this statement which somehow shows the impact:

      “We estimate that due to elimination of the mandate penalty, premiums would increase by an additional 7 percent per enrollee (95 percent confidence interval: 5 percent to 9 percent) in California, which is somewhat lower than the CBO/JCT 10 percent estimate”

      I will try to dig in to find another source, but for now let me think about the above paragraph?

  5. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Would affordable care be considered an unsustainable ‘wicked problem’ like the energy problem I have addressed? Then a Fact Check that’s limited to the Second Degree of Clarity of the Printing Big Shift won’t help the people. To help the people with sustainable heath care we need to help emerge an institutional innovation that people are not expecting but will love. In that light, please contribute to the project “#GoodNews4GD: #3rdDegreeOfClarity “Evidence-Based Journalism” ( https://www.wikitribune.com/project/goodnews4gd-3rddegreeofclarity-evidence-based-journalism/?revisionID=92265 ).”

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Just saw your edits to the article. How can fact-checking be “reliable, but invalid?”

      The point of this piece isn’t to debate the sustainability of the Affordable Care Act; it’s to fact-check the senator’s claims.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        For WikiTribune to serve the communities, it is not about mass media Fact-checking, you, or me being right. It is about adding value with sustainable care. I add that business as usual repealing of the Affordable Care Act without an institutional innovation to introduce the typical kind deregulation will become even more unsustainable. Having said that, the senator’s claim must be classified as fake news.

        1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

          I think the references and sources show rather conclusively that this is an *accurate* claim. So no, not fake news.

          1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

            It is “accurate,” but invalid. Invalid because it is far from the reality of the communities. “The assumptions on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality,” according to “The Theory of the Business,” by Peter F. Drucker, originally published in September-October 1994, on the Harvard Business Review. Reprint 94506.

            Edited: 2018-10-30 13:27:01 By José Vanderhorst-Silverio (talk | contribs) + 17 Characters .. + 4% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

            1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

              José, with all due respect, someone *has* to be right. If we can’t resolve speculation, then this site has no hope of being a truly crowd-sourced newsroom.

              That being said, this simple fact-check article isn’t for litigating the efficacy or “validity” of the Affordable Care Act. It’s for holding a sitting member of Congress accountable for she says.

              I would encourage you otherwise to report on why Obamacare isn’t working as an institution. That would be an interesting story indeed!

              1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                Thank you Fred. With all due respect, the problem is that “a truly crowd-sourced newsroom” is of no service to the community before changing from the old PLAN in a path without a heart to a new PLAN after the VISION is in a path with a heart.

                Fact-checking for “a truly crowd-sourced newsroom” will be great after we change from The Wealth of Nations to The Wealth of Globalization. As an example, please consider the story “Electricity model makes existing models obsolete ( https://medium.com/@gmh_upsa/electricity-model-makes-existing-models-obsolete-12f002f49c8e ),” which is a higher level Framework Change Model to be emulated by a second level Pattern Change in a Health Care Model. Fact-checking is in the lower third level of a direct action model. More on this hierarchy is available upon request.

                This is an issue of leadership first, management second. In the introduction of the must read Linkedin article “Lessons I Learned from Peter Drucker ( https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=1933 ),”Marshall Goldsmith said:

                At one meeting of the Board of the Peter Drucker Foundation, I asked Peter, “You have written so much about mission - what is your mission?“

                — Peter replied, “To help other people achieve their goals - assuming that they are not immoral or unethical!”

                He went on to say that “Peter taught me three things about how to impact decision makers and thus make a huge impact at work,” which he integrated this way:

                — The best leaders focus on making a positive difference and selling their ideas to decision makers, not on proving how smart or how right they are.

                Edited: 2018-10-30 14:52:05 By José Vanderhorst-Silverio (talk | contribs) + 196 Characters .. + 12% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

              2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                Hi again Fred. By the way, please reinstate my paragraph that was deleted by Marcel Stimberg (he is in the ‘mute’ state for me) as being Off-Topic, when it is not.

                1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                  Hi José, I’ve taken a look at the paragraph that was removed, and I have to agree that it is off topic.

                  As has been said above, this is a fact check, whereas the removed paragraph reads as an opinion and raises points which are not relevant to the topic of this article.

                  I quote “Fact Checking might be reliable, but invalid. Obama Care is unsustainable solution to a Wicked problem under the Simplistic Globalization Model that is made obsolete by the Updated Globalization Conceptual Model that requires the application of the heuristic methodology of systems architecting to help emerge a health care institutional innovation.”

                  The sustainability of Obama Care is not relevant here. This is a fact check on whether Senator Feinstein’s quoted statistics are accurate.

                  As a general point, this paragraph comes over as an opinion piece, as it does not cite articles from sources independent of the author. Relevant and on-topic points gain credibility and perspective when they cite other published articles.

                  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                    My quotes, for example, on Peter Drucker’s “The Theory of the Business” is not an independent source.

                    Lessons learned by Marshall Goldsmith, “one of the world’s leading executive educators, coaches, and authors. He has been a pioneer in helping successful leaders achieve positive, lasting change in behavior. His success is built upon a very practical, no-nonsense approach to leadership. His clients have included over 150 major CEOs,” is not an independent source on leadership.

                    Roberto Verganti suggest it is a VISION in his after the facts book “Overcrowded: Designing Meaningful Products in a World Awash with Ideas.” that’s in my story “Electricity model makes existing models obsolete,” is not an independent source.

                    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” — Buckminster Fuller

                    In the summary of the paper “A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal,” which is headed by the above quote I wrote back in 2013 in its second and third paragraphs:

                    In the paper Rethinking Electricity Restructuring, Van Doren and Taylor said in 2004 that “the poor track record of restructuring stems from systemic problems inherent in the reforms themselves. We recommend total abandonment of restructuring and a more thoroughgoing embrace of markets than contemplated in current restructuring initiatives.”

                    What Van Doren and Taylor failed to recognize was that systemic problems are the “wicked” problems that were identified by professors Rittel and Webber as far back as 1973. In addition, as early as 1989, professor Paquet provided two characteristics that make the traditional policy research methods inadequate to address “wicked” problems, while stating a simple rule for the selection of a framework that is satisfied, for example, by the generative restructuring proposal of the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework

                    There are more if you want more inside that paper that supports my VISION on electricity.

                    Then please tell me what is relevant?

                    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

                      Perhaps I can turn that question around. The senator tweeted about “Repealing the mandate means 378,000 fewer Californians will have health care and is responsible for 40% of this year’s rate increase.”

                      The article is aiming to fact check those figures i.e. the 378,000 and the 40%.

                      Can you explain how the references to Drucker, Goldsmith et al and your vision on electricity clarifies whether Senator Feinstein’s tweet was accurate or not?

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing articles:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us