Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: Krystal Ball: Washington Post "fact check" proves Bernie right [View all]lapucelle
(21,066 posts)163. WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed.
Himmelstein is confusing the editorial he published in 2019, cited by BS and fact checked by WaPo with a study he co-authored a decade ago.
Sanders said 500,000 people were driven to bankruptcy by medical bills. A Sanders campaign aide said he was relying on an editorial published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) in March.
The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.
In AJPH, many editorials are commissioned by the editor-in-chief from experts in their field(s), as a forum to present their most recent or preliminary findings on specific topics, or to coincide with significant dates or events, said Morgan Richardson, an AJPH editor. Lack of peer review does not indicate inaccuracy, but editorials are less likely to be cited in the scientific literature as evidence because the standard of rigor is different due to context.
However, Himmelstein used a methodology similar to what he, Warren and other researchers used in a 2005 peer-reviewed study that they updated in 2009. Warren was a co-author of those two studies, but not the AJPH editorial published in March.
The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer-reviewed editing process as a research article.
In AJPH, many editorials are commissioned by the editor-in-chief from experts in their field(s), as a forum to present their most recent or preliminary findings on specific topics, or to coincide with significant dates or events, said Morgan Richardson, an AJPH editor. Lack of peer review does not indicate inaccuracy, but editorials are less likely to be cited in the scientific literature as evidence because the standard of rigor is different due to context.
However, Himmelstein used a methodology similar to what he, Warren and other researchers used in a 2005 peer-reviewed study that they updated in 2009. Warren was a co-author of those two studies, but not the AJPH editorial published in March.
******************************************************************************************
The study was published in 2005 and updated and re-published 2009. Both iterations were peer reviewed and both were co-authored by Elizabeth Warren.
The editorial that BS cited was published in 2019. It was not co-authored by Elizabeth Warren and it was not peer reviewed.
BS was relying on the information in the editorial (not the peer-reviewed studies co-authored by Elizabeth Warren) when he made the claims that earned him a Three Pinocchios rating.
As for any alleged besmirching of anyone's reputation, my advice to the good doctor would be to go back and carefully re-read what the fact check article actually says.
*****************************************************************************************
Update, Sept. 3: The Sanders campaign objected to this fact check, as did the key researchers of the AJPH editorial. Please see the response below by Himmelstein and his colleague Steffie Woolhandler. We stand by our Three-Pinocchio rating.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/28/sanderss-flawed-statistic-medical-bankruptcies-year/?noredirect=on
*****************************************************************************************
The peer reviewed study by David U. Himmelstein, MD, Deborah Thorne, PhD, Elizabeth Warren, JD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH:
https://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf#page=3
The editorial by David U. Himmelstein MD, Robert M. Lawless JD, Deborah Thorne PhD, Pamela Foohey JD, and Steffie Woolhandler MD, MPH that BS cited:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
181 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The video says (at about 2:50) that medical expenses are a "contributing factor"...
George II
Sep 2019
#17
It's been represented more than once that medical expenses are THE reason for bankruptcies....
George II
Sep 2019
#60
If it's only 30%, that means OTHER reasons other than medical expenses represent 70% of the reason.
George II
Sep 2019
#63
No. Just pointing out facts. But there is a lot of bias against Bernie simpply because he has
KPN
Sep 2019
#10
"Gross generalities", as you put it, are what the premise of the % of bankruptcies was based.
George II
Sep 2019
#50
"I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone's demand for "links"
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#134
So, why exactly are you NOT supporting "the person who has probably been the most aggressive
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#145
So tell us, what "genuine progressive economic policy" has he gotten enacted "over the past....
George II
Sep 2019
#162
Look up his amendments, there are a lot -- if you really are interested. I'm not your gofer George.
KPN
Sep 2019
#176
This attitude is exactly why we don't always get out the vote. Poo-pawing or downplaying
KPN
Sep 2019
#11
In the real world, one needs to keep an open mind in order to tell the difference betwen
KPN
Sep 2019
#13
I am less concerned with the number, because it surely is a problem, and more
Eliot Rosewater
Sep 2019
#23
I am concerned if someone who claims they can fix a problem gets their numbers wrong
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#31
YEAH I hear you, I do...But imagine if he actually did win, is he going to change his
Eliot Rosewater
Sep 2019
#52
If a politician is going to use numbers to support their case, the numbers should be correct.
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#98
No, global warming is supported by facts. The WAPO piece is like climate science
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#93
I would venture to guess that more voters are turned off by candidates exaggerating....
George II
Sep 2019
#16
In what way is the perspective biased? Where are the REAL numbers specifically? I don't see them.
George II
Sep 2019
#35
Okay, pick bones between contributed and caused if you like. The point being contributed has the
KPN
Sep 2019
#108
Contributed to, and causality are not mere 'bones' when it comes to statistics.
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#110
Now there's a euphemism ... "correcting" something that was in my very educated opinion
KPN
Sep 2019
#118
Your very educated opinion doesn't outweigh this groups' collective very educated opinion
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#119
No, they lied. WAPO said the study that Bernie used was not peer reviewed and in fact it was,
Uncle Joe
Sep 2019
#26
They "lied"? They didn't have a problem with it but they clearly looked at it more objectively.
George II
Sep 2019
#38
WaPo published an update today. They are standing by their Three-Pinocchio rating.
lapucelle
Sep 2019
#80
re: "According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct..."
thesquanderer
Sep 2019
#173
That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies...
George II
Sep 2019
#69
Another evasion of the actual question. No surprise. But since you brought it up....
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#97
Here's an article from the NCBI published in The New England Journal of Medicine- peer reviewed
Thekaspervote
Sep 2019
#57
Ntl Cntr of Biotech info with a peer reviewed paper published in The New England Journal of
Thekaspervote
Sep 2019
#78
Not a Sanders fan for numerous reasons, but too many financial hardships are caused by health costs.
Hoyt
Sep 2019
#62
If a Pol is going to quote numbers, that pol needs to be sure that those numbers are correct.
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#72
"Close enough" isn't going to cut it in the age of the internet and fact checks.
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#94
Seems like a lot of energy spent arguing about a factoid in a campaign speech.
TreasonousBastard
Sep 2019
#87
If one is going to make a point with facts, it's sort of important that they be facts
ehrnst
Sep 2019
#92
Are you equally concerned by Factcheck.org's finding that Warren's Wealth Tax will yield only 40%
Hoyt
Sep 2019
#100
I said earlier I am not a Sander's fan and I am positive he's wrong about the cost of M4A.
Hoyt
Sep 2019
#102
I get tired of all candidates promising the world with questionable funding sources.
Hoyt
Sep 2019
#105