Validity
The problem discussed in the case is whether or not the government should manage health care in the United States. The authors identify several problems with the current health care system, including costs that are rising faster than inflation, that health care coverage costs are rising even faster than that, and there are millions of uninsured. The problem can be tackled by using any of a number of logical approaches. Arguably, none of them were used by the articles, whose arguments would not cut muster at a decent high school, let alone in a journal.
Causal thinking seeks to understand the causes of the problem, as a means of identifying the areas where remedy should be applied. There are several causes of the problems. Costs are escalating in part because of innovation, which drives higher quality but also makes costs increase. Insurance companies also contribute to the cost, because of profit-taking. All told, health care providers and insurance companies are in a position where they take profits that are very high because buyers and payers do not have adequate knowledge of the cost structure...
The causal analysis breaks down again when they claim that people who presently cannot afford health care would see no changes if health care was free -- how does that work? When you lower the price, more people can afford it. Call it cause and effect, or call it supply and demand, but the authors do not seem to understand basic cause-and-effect models here. None of their claims flows from an understanding of the causal links in health care.
Another model of thinking is logical, which can be inductive, deductive or abductive. To understand the underlying reasons behind a problem, abductive reasoning is the most appropriate, because it relies on inference to the best explanation. This method of thinking still relies on understanding the causal pathways. The first thing is that there are many problems in the health care system, and your…
