John Kerry, health care triggers, and the "No True Scotsman" fallacy

[TayTay]

I have the deepest urge to turn off the computer and not discuss health care with anyone for a week. I am deeply dissatisfied with the discussion on both sides. The RW has distorted the facts, outright lied about goals and outcomes of the Dem proposals and rejoiced in the fact that they might be able to deny change of a system that is rotting from the core out. The online Dems have become doctrinaire, rigid and unable to discuss anything besides the need for a public option. The debate itself is false and I think I might benefit from seeking my own counsel on it for a while.

The Boston Globe has a http://www.boston.com/yourtown/somerville/articles/2009/09/04/kerry_poised_to_take_greater_role_in_health_care_debate/?page=2">nice little interview with Sen. Kerry in today's (9/4/09) edition. He is quoted, by an actual reporter with attribution. Some excerpts:

And though he strongly favors a public insurance plan consumers could buy into, Kerry has also floated an alternative to appeal to skeptics - a “trigger’’ mechanism that would create a public option only if private insurers fail to hit price targets after new regulations take effect.

SNIP ....

When they return to Washington next week, he said, Democrats should focus on developing the strongest health care plan they can - and they should not yet back away from the public plan, which he called “the best way to try to hold costs down.’’

SNIP .....

Democrats could resort to Plan B - ignoring Republicans and a few moderate Democrats and enacting a health care plan under special budget rules known as “reconciliation,’’ which requires a simple majority vote but limits the content of the bill. Kerry said he “absolutely’’ considers this to be a viable alternative if necessary.

“I think it’s time for us to see what we can produce as Democrats with 60 votes,’’ Kerry said. “If you can’t, you have to turn around and see what you can do with 51 votes.’’

I deduce from this article that Sen. Kerry:

• Is strongly in favor of the public option and will work for it on the Senate Finance Committee;
  
• Understands that there might not be 60 votes in the Senate to get a public option through in a stand-alone bill;
  
• Favors using the process of reconciliation to get parts of health reform through if all else fails; and
  
• believes that triggers, if all else fails, might be a way to get a public option.
  

What I think portions of the liberal web will hear is:

John Kerry is in favor of a triggers. Triggers are evil and only apostates and traitors use them. (Oh and electricians, but they are exempt because, well, they have to use them.) Primary him, or tar and feather him or boil him in effigy. (ouch and a mixed metaphor, btw.)

We seem to be seeing a bad case of the http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/">No true Scotsman logical fallacy at work here. (WTF Tay, pray tell, is that. So glad I asked.)

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

1. Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
   
2. No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
   Therefore:
   
3. Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
   Therefore:
   
4. Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
   

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Sen. Kerry is in favor of the public option, but he mentioned triggers. No "true liberal" believes in or talks about triggers. Therefore, Kerry cannot be a proponent of the public option because he had the audacity to scope out triggers. Voila! We have defined a great proponent of the public option and liberal reform of the public health system as Not a True Public Options person.

I am tired of this dishonest argument. I hope we get something real to talk about soon. I actually do think that there are variations on the theme in health care reform and that those variations are okay. The discussion itself is so bizarre. Maybe it can get better, maybe it can't, but Lord I think I need to disengage from the liberal web for a while.