Congeries of cross connected concepts
One thing I find bizarre in the discussions of the current health care nationalization effort is the view, not just among the Democratic Party leadership, that if legislation is passed
Leaving aside the idea that you have a problem if you are trying to pass legislation that is so vague and indeterminate that you can’t explain what it is until it is passed, the elephant in the room seems to me that this completely ignores the fact that the payments start immediately but the benefits don’t kick in until 2014 or later. What exactly would be explained after passage, “Your taxes are going right now up but in just 4 years you’ll get some good stuff unless Congress changes things. But don’t worry about that, Congress will be ‘fixing’ all the problems before then.”? That despite the deficit of trust that our current Administration has so unexpectedly incurred.
| David Cohen Monday, 08 February 2010 at 18:14 |  |
I think it’s a hangover from their polling. This stuff always polls well because the questions are along the line of: “are you in favor of the government providing free lunches.” Are you in favor of the government … providing health insurance for those who can’t afford it, … taking action to lower the price of health care, … stopping us from being the only OECD nation without national health care, … keeping its promise to seniors and the less well off, … etc.
It’s never, are you in favor of the government … mandating that people must buy health insurance, … subsidizing family health insurance up to 300% of the poverty line, … taxing your health insurance, … making you change to a government approved health insurance plan, … controlling what treatments are available to you, … deciding whether certain treatments are too expensive, given the age or general health of the patient, etc.
When they do all that stuff — which is an absolute prerequisite for national health care — suddenly all the people who said yes to the pollster say no in the polling booth. So the Dems decide that they’ve been scared by the Republicans and if they could only see it in action, they’d love it.
| Bret Monday, 08 February 2010 at 19:34 | |
Well, in that case, I guess the Dems are right and we the people are stupid.
You’d think by now we’d’ve learned that there’s no such thing as a free lunch and when polled whether or not we’d like a free lunch, we’d say NO! (because there’s no such thing).
| AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 08 February 2010 at 23:19 | |
As much as it pains me to say it, YES, “we the people” are stupid.
Or, more accurately, we’re ignorant and apathetic. Many, many people, arguably a majority of American adults, know no more non-trivia and want to know no more non-trivia than what’s absolutely necessary to get by day-to-day.
But a whole lot of people know a whole lot of trivia, so I suppose that it’s not so much that hoi polloi are ignorant, it’s just that they’re very well informed about everything that doesn’t much matter, and poorly informed about that which absolutely does.
| David Cohen Tuesday, 09 February 2010 at 13:53 | |
So, what you’re really saying is that those people over there are stupid and uninformed.
| AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 22:57 | |
What I’m saying is that, as a whole, the citizens of any nation are uninformed, apathetic, and ignorant - only about one in four persons are “stupid”. But IMO it’s worse to be intelligent-and-ignorant, rather than simply stupid.
As for “those people over there” vs you ‘n’ me… I’m both intelligent and informed. Do you feel that you manifest those qualities as well? If so, then you too are different from the public as a whole.
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t extremely diverse opinions among those who are informed. But I feel very safe in discounting the opinions of people who aren’t informed. Do you value equally the opinions and analysis of both the knowledgeable and the ignorant?
| Bret Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 00:09 | |
Rough asks: “I’m both intelligent and informed. Do you feel that you manifest those qualities as well?
Well, since you asked, I certainly don’t manifest those qualities. I know the tiniest, itsy-bitsiest fraction of 1% of what there is to know, or even what there is that’s useful to know. In fact, I know so little that I can’t even begin to quantify how little I know. So, unfortunately, I too am part of the masses who are greater than 99% ignorant.
It’s really awesome (literally) that you’re informed. That does make you a truly unique and pretty much god-like individual. And you can indeed “feel very safe in discounting the opinions of” pretty much everybody else since the rest of us are all greater than 99% ignorant.
| AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 01:50 | |
Nice sarcasm, but hypocritical, since you don’t believe what you just wrote.
Do you seriously take the position that “everyone else” knows as much as you do about robotics? That you are “not informed”? What are your hiring practices, first-come-first-hired, knowledge and experience irrelevant?
No. Your own actions belie your comedic stance.
Really, since you wrote nothing of consequence, I can’t tell why you object to the very basic and completely-verifiable premise of what I wrote.
I’m the only one on Earth who is like God, and therefore nobody else is worthy to be in my presence?!? Very flattering, but puh-lease.
| AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 02:38 | |
More to the point, Bret, if you’re “part of the masses who are greater than 99% ignorant”, then how do you reconcile knowing TANSTAAFL while majorities at every level of politics, in the U.S. and in every other advanced nation on Earth, vote to implement the impossible?
Look at what’s going on in Greece right now, and at what happened in France a coupla years ago when they tried to cut future retirement benefits. Look at Obama’s proposed two trillion US$ fiscal ‘11 budget deficit.
TANSTAAFL doesn’t appear to be in the hoi polloi lexicon.
| Bret Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 11:40 | |
Rough wrote: “Nice sarcasm, …“
Thank you.
Rough wrote: “…but hypocritical, since you don’t believe what you just wrote.“
Since you’re the informed one, we’ll have to take your word for it. Though it seems to me that if what I wrote is sarcasm, I would inherently not believe it and couldn’t be hypocritical.
Rough wrote: “Do you seriously take the position that “everyone else” knows as much as you do about robotics?“
You got it backwards. Pretty much everyone else knows as little as I do about robotics. I certainly know less than 1% of what there is to know about robotics. Perhaps if one really narrows it down to something like, “Software Algorithms for Dynamic 3D Modelling of Grape Vines from Video Sequences from Multiple Stereo Cameras” I might possibly know more than 1% of what’s currently known.
Rough wrote: “What are your hiring practices, first-come-first-hired, knowledge and experience irrelevant?“
Well, I tried ads for robotic grape vine pruning experts but didn’t get any takers so I went for “intelligent-and-ignorant” rather than “simply stupid” and it’s worked out pretty well since they were able to learn what they needed for their specific tasks.
Rough wrote:”I can’t tell why you object to the very basic and completely-verifiable premise of what I wrote.“
I definitely do not believe that there is a segment of the population that is substantially less ignorant “about that which absolutely does” matter. Also, to me the concept of “discounting the opinions of people who aren’t informed” is just an excuse to ignore everyone you don’t agree with (‘cause hey, they must be ignorant if they don’t agree with me).
| Bret Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 11:49 | |
Rough wrote: “…then how do you reconcile knowing TANSTAAFL while majorities … vote to implement the impossible…“
(Ironically, I had to look up the acronym TANSTAAFL).
First, I didn’t write that everyone is ignorant about the exact same things.
Second, I can imagine other explanations. For example, perhaps they know TANSTAAFL but there’s some sort of free-rider problem, or something inherent in the system.
| erp Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 14:25 | |
Rough, IMO the public isn’t stupid or uninformed, they’re deliberately misinformed and misdirected by the schools and the information/entertainment media.
Learning is the most fun of all things.
The problem is we’re not learning about what’s important, e.g., geology, we’re being force fed trivia about rock stars and left wing propaganda about “saving” our home rock aka the earth.
FYI Rough — Knowing stuff (knowledge) and interpreting it correctly (wisdom) don’t always go together.
| Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 15:20 | |
erp;
I think it’s also deliberate. Historically, the average American citizen didn’t have to be very aware of politics or our political class, one of the many advantages of limited government. We may be reaching a tipping point where that’s just no longer possible. I wonder how much of the Tea Party rage is because our government has finally become so intrusive that people can’t ignore it.
| David Cohen Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 16:11 | |
As you suggest, I know lots of stuff. But the scope of my stuff is just as limited as everyone else’s, it’s just that my stuff tends to be the stuff that comes up a lot on the conservative/libertarian blogs I spend time at (a version of the anthropic principal). I know exactly nothing about the future, just like everyone else.
The genius of representative democracy is that it asks the people to do something that they’re very good at: judging the character and trustworthyness of particular individuals about whom not very much is known. No expert is going to be any better at picking representatives than the people at large, and almost all will be worse. Since, particularly with the president, we never know what the big challenge is going to be, time spend figuring out who’s position is more logical is time wasted. The only question that matters is who do we want dealing with issues that we don’t even know about yet.
Now, I disagree with the people about Barack Obama. I’d rather have John McCain deciding unknown issues (although not be that much) because while I’m skeptical about his judgment, I’m convinced that he’s more likely to act in the way he truly believe is good for the nation as a whole. But more people wanted a black president, so my side lost.
As Bret says, we’re all dealing with bounded rationality. We can’t make good decisions about the future, we can only make good decisions about the people who will first have responsibility for reacting to that future.
| David Cohen Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 16:11 | |
This is also why direct democracy is a terrible idea.
