This is huge

http://edge.org/conversation/the-argumentative-theory

EDGE: To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.

 -- Edge site header

Last July, opening the Edge Seminar, "The New Science of Morality," Jonathan Haidt digressed to talk about two recently-published papers in Behavioral and Brain Sciences which he believed were "so important that the abstracts from them should be posted in psychology departments all over the country."

---

"The article,” Haidt said, "is a review of a puzzle that has bedeviled researchers in cognitive psychology and social cognition for a long time. The puzzle is, why are humans so amazingly bad at reasoning in some contexts, and so amazingly good in others?"

-- Intro to article on argumentative theory, EDGE

This is huge stuff. Turns epistemology (and much else from psych to political science) on its head. See what you think.

I love that statement at the top. Reminds me of the institutional motto attributed to the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) back in the 60s:

We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we have found only ... raise a whole new set of questions. In some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.

--gc  

Punching In at HR's Place

At Heathen Republican today there is a discussion "On Cost Transparency In the Health Care Industry"

HR argues that free market principles are not at work in the US healthcare system and this is driving up costs. The true costs of healthcare are not visible to the consumer, who therefore has no incentive to care about them. Meanwhile providers price their services for their own benefit with little regard for the cost to the consumer.

The commenters at the HR tend to be liberal apologists who regularly fret and fume about almost any conservative assertion made there, while the author calmly explains why they are wrong. There tends to be a bit of "changing the subject" in the comments -- to redefine an issue and/or put words into the author's mouth, then attack the reformulated position. That seems to be a hallmark of liberal rhetoric and I find it irritating. 

So once in awhile I drop a comment over there, to let HR know I'm around and  that I tend to agree with him, not them.

I had so much fun with that today, I thought I'd share my contribution. (I might add to this later, to amplify and clarify my point, since this does not begin to cover what I think of the "healthcare" system).

To HR:

GTChristie Mar 15, 2012 08:11 AM

HR, your example scenario is quite useful and revealing. We'd need to document some facts to make it stand up in court (LOL) but the principle itself is spot on:

If the cost of a procedure is X (call it 200) and the covered amount is Y (call it 150), then X - Y = U (uncovered cost = 50).

There are three choices for the provider:
1) charge someone else a higher rate for the same item
2) charge the patient the difference
3) provider eats the difference

Option 1: Uninsured must be charged twice 50 -- once for herself, plus once to make up for the partially covered patient.

Option 2: This is the option actually in use. This is also where co-pay and deductibles come in. The actual cost to the consumer is the price of insurance plus out-of-pocket payments to cover deductibles, co-pays and uncovered expenses.

Option 3: It's safe to assume this actually never happens on the bottom line, even though some of a high-cost patient's bills might be forgiven (she dies bankrupted by illness, estate can't pay, provider cannot collect.) Officially the shortfall is made up by some combination of options 1 and 2. Unofficially, however, here lies the incentive for the provider to pad bills all around with higher prices and unnecessary but high-profit procedures etc.

From this simple dissection (disambiguation? deconstruction?) of the situation, it's easy to see that dislocations of the supply/demand economic model will occur especially in a three-party system where none of the parties is accountable (or motivated) for reducing costs, yet each party is motivated to maximize return on investment.

HR's analysis ends with the magic final phrase: "getting away from the third-party payer system." BINGO.

The "supply/demand/price" equation normally indicates a relationship between supplier and consumer -- here, between provider and patient. Introduction of the third party -- the insurance industry -- skews the equation and introduces much of the distortion. Some will argue that, without this party, no consumer could actually afford health care. Nobody actually knows this, however, since it is not presently a system of free-market economics. The magic phrase above, however, is revealing. The insurance industry is run for profit and so is the health care industry. So my health care costs are determined by two industries with their own profit needs.

Now comes the fourth party: government. Introducing that factor into the already toxic cross-purposes of two entire private industries and a consumer who will eventually get sick and die seems, intuitively, to be a recipe for disaster simply from the increase in complexity of the system, now departed one more step from the simple economic laws of supply and demand.

And what has government done? Heavily lobbied by all three currently interested parties, it has created a combination of "mandates," "regulations," "subsidies" and "penalties" to reduce the costs of healthcare.  I would submit that if the insurance industry already skews the relationship between patient and provider (and thus the laws of supply/demand), no amount of government intervention (which adds another set of costs to the equation) can solve the problem.

The problems we see in this arena trace down to the basis of the system, which is to operate "health care" for profit. And there are too many profiteers (one of whom actually is the consumer). I know this implies that perhaps healthcare might be better, more affordable, and more accessible if it were not run for profit -- anathema to our free-enterprise values.

But with the government more involved, it almost certainly will not be profitable anyhow. LOL.

Actually, I forgot there's a fifth party: employers who pay part (even most) of the cost of the insurance. No wonder the system's so effed up.

To the Syrians

The Syrian nation prepares to vote in a constitutional referendum sponsored by the regime. The leadership claims that political reforms will allow a multi-party system.

Opposition leaders have scoffed at the exercise, calling it a sham. They believe it's another rear guard action, just a smokescreen to give continued oppression a cloak of respectability. 

It's not enough, they say.

Therefore some have called for a boycott of the vote.

To the Syrians:

Never, ever, refuse to vote in an election, regardless how corrupt it may be. Vote. Vote in large numbers. Vote as you please. Vote your conscience. 

Every vote, even in the most corrupt election, is a vote for freedom. It is a vote for democracy. It is a vote for dignity. It is a vote against corruption. Every vote is the voice of the people -- heeded or not.

Make sure it is heard. Defy them to ignore it.

Vote in massive numbers.  Make your vote so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored. Dare the corrupt regime to miscount or misrepresent the will of the people.

And when the inevitable happens and nothing changes, the regime will show itself for what it is: dishonest, self-serving, favoritistic and oppressive. 

By this means you will show the world what you want is genuine, while those who would deny your freedom and dignity show the world what worthless weasels they really are.

The world will be on your side.

 DEFY THEM.

VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.

gc 

Great Minds

In my opinion, the first-person pronoun-count in a serious essay becomes excessive after zero.

 -- GC
    Snarking, Snarling, Sharing
    The_Moxie_Files
    Feb 01, 2011

My wish for you

 

 Happy New Year

from the land of the sparkling turquoise sky

 Rose Bowl Float - January 2, 2012

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tv-den/2011/dec/31/new-years-day-tv-schedule-rose-parade-college-bowl/

.

Putting the "Demo" in Democracy

In a democracy every citizen is a moral agent — an independent shaper of the moral life of the state.

That core fact constitutes the moral justification of democracy as a practice. Elevation to agency within the public sphere recognizes the moral standing of every citizen, justifies mutual responsibilities between individual and state, and legitimizes the right of the state to rule. The line between citizen and government is thin and porous: the citizen is the state.

This core moral relationship presents a useful yardstick to evaluate many other practices that may nurture or hinder the proper functioning of democracy.

For instance, wider enfranchisement increases the pool of moral agents (thus interests) influencing the state. Since democracy is justified by the moral agency of citizens, limits upon enfranchisement violate the integrity of the democratic process. Exclusions must be justified, otherwise the legitimacy of the democratic state is reduced.

Another: a citizen's non-participation in a standing democracy is a moral choice. In fact it tends to be an immoral choice: when chosen it reduces both the moral standing of the agent and the legitimacy of the democratic state.

Another: since no person controls the political environment, individuals must bond with like-minded others to influence policy. Given this necessity for group effort, freedoms of speech and assembly are morally justified. Limits upon these freedoms also must be justified before imposition, at the risk of reducing the legitimacy of the state.

In other words, any policy or procedure that affects the ability of the citizen to act as a moral agent is justified or not, depending on its effect upon the agency of the citizen — explicitly because this agency is the central moral justification of a democratic system.

In non-democratic countries, when democracy becomes a demand of the people, those who support democracy must understand the moral value they are insisting upon: that is, equal voices even for their political enemies. Morally the democratic voice must support a non-exclusive regime for balancing the interests of everyone.

A demand for anything less than inclusion of every legitimate agent is not a call for democracy, not a rejection of tyranny or corruption, but rather a plea for a new tyranny and a different set of corruptions — which is bound to fail.

gc

.

Sam Harris Post Redux

It drives people nuts sometimes, but anyone who spends much time here at The_Moxie_Files notices eventually that I cannot leave my posts as-is. I edit almost obsessively.

That is the case with my February 14 post on Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape, which was itself a rewrite. As I reread it recently, I got the sense that I had not focused the argument well enough.

So I invite anyone who's still interested to revisit the essay and see the latest rev. 

gc