Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (38782)	11/24/2014 2:36:32 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

>> I used to dread the prospect of Walmart showing up but I have evolved a more balanced perspective. Walmart is a great boon for people of little means. Everything they could want in one place and you can't beat the prices. I still feel some nostalgia. It's not much fun to shop while traveling anymore--no cool little shops to poke around in. And so many dead main streets. And so much lost entrepreneurship and creativity. Mixed bag, Walmart. LOL. I get it. My brother and his wife drive 80 miles to go to Walmart. There is a Walmart in their town. They just hate going there and running into everyone in town they know. So, they drive to Louisiana so they can shop in peace ;) There was a certain romance, in the days of my youth, in going to the "square" in the town I lived in, and going in the old mercantile stores with high ceilings, cooled by fans in the summer. But those guys had to make profits, too. They're still there, but I imagine the pricing is more competitive than it was back then. Walmart bashing has become a pastime with many people. RW thinks every employee there ought to be guaranteed $40,000 a year. I doubt working at Walmart is a lot of fun for most people but it is a job and the fact that people do work there suggests those employees prefer it to unemployment. I just really have no complaint with them. They fill a need or they wouldn't be in business.

To: Lane3 who wrote (38782)	11/24/2014 2:36:42 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

The rational ignorance of Jonathan Gruber Dr. Saurabh Jha \| Policy \| November 24, 2014 I think it’s fair to say Jonathan Gruber will not be offered the role of Pinocchio. Although intelligence agencies, in search of the truth serum, might have an interest in the ingredients of what he drinks. Please put away the pitchforks. Gruber deserves credit for honesty and bipartisanship. Plus a complete rejection of Disneyland economics. If you’re looking for transparency, the other face of honesty, Gruber is ground zero. Stupidity, though, was an unfortunate choice of noun. And inaccurate. Gruber should have said “rational ignorance” or “boundless optimism in technocracy,” which describes most voters in any democracy. Rational ignorance sounds smart. The cognoscenti know what you’re trying to get at. And the rationally ignorant, well they’re rationally ignorant. The term means something we do all the time: that is we can’t be bothered to seek information whether something is factually correct or not. It’s an information heuristic (mental short cut). Imagine the information overload if we were presented itemized bills for everything we consumed in a restaurant. We’d know the costs of transporting that fine rack of lamb to the city, of its slaughter, of cleaning the abattoir after the slaughter. But to what avail is this information? Unless you’re a payer hunting for pseudofraud, granularity is a nuisance. So that to avoid long term anhedonia from figuring CBO’s myriad calculations from magical Keynesian models we watch the Kardashians instead. When you’re rationally ignorant you can be duped. Or rationally duped. But here is the key point: we choose what we allow ourselves to be duped about. No one can fool us twice without our consent. I love a certain technology: MRI of the heart. It pays my electricity bills. Show me a study that shows this technology is beneficial and I’ll gloss over the methodology. Show me a study that casts an aspersion on its efficacy and I’ll become a pit bull terrier of methodology and conclude: a) the study was underpowered for the effect size; and, b) more research is needed. My rational ignorance is not equal. There is a value component to it. I am rationally ignorant about statements that are egosyntonic with my utopia. To those who believe that ACA will somehow cut costs whilst expanding coverage and access you can’t say, “If you believe that you’ll believe anything.” Because they won’t believe anything. They’re not stupid. They’re rationally ignorant. People who couldn’t see the indifference between a mandate and a tax, and many still couldn’t see it when Justice Roberts pointed the obvious, aren’t so gullible that you can sell snake oil. They’re rationally ignorant. People who marched against the ACA with that priceless placard “Government, hands off my Medicare,” aren’t script writers for Monty Python. They’re rationally ignorant. The problem isn’t that we’re rationally ignorant. The problem is how selective and predictable our rational ignorance has become. The problem is the ease with which we can access echo chambers which endorse this selectivity. The problem is the moral certitude with which we deny our rational ignorance. Gruber, on the other hand, knows his biases, acknowledges them, and says, “Yes, the ends justify the means.” This is intellectual honesty 101. You may not like his means but how can you not muster a tincture of admiration for this man and claim a desire for transparency? Rational ignorance, I suppose. kevinmd.com Saurabh Jha is a radiologist and can be reached on Twitter @RogueRad. This article originally appeared in the Health Care Blog.