The realization that many people are not actually smart enough to figure their own interests came to me about 10 years ago, and the world made a lot more sense since then.

(the late George Carlin reasoned thus: "Think how dumb the average person is; and now realize that half the population is even dumber than that". It's true, if you assume "dumbness" distribution is symmetric around the mean. Or, just replace "average" with median and it's true by definition.)

Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up?

Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you. This doesn't make them stupid. If anything, like when Gates or Buffett talk about how they should be made personally worse off, it shows the courage of their own convictions.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but people who find such a statement insulting should get off the internet. That said:

> Do we dismiss Bill Gates as being too dumb to care for his own interests when he says his tax rate should go up?

No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down.

What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest.

> Sometimes people feel differently than you. Even if it would be in their personal selfish interest to agree with you.

Yes, and I respect their right to do that, even if there is no logical way, selfish or communal, short term or long term, in which it serves any measurable interest of theirs. But I also reserve the right to call them stupid for it (for being unable to demonstrate to a mythical "objective observer" that their votes support their interests, that is. I won't call them stupid if they can soundly reason about it, even if I disagree with their reasoning)

And I repeat again: Gates and Buffett are talking their interest.

Joe the Plumber is stupid (reminder: he complained that although he is making $40,000 year NOW, he's going to buy his employer's business in the future, and make $200,000/year, and at that point Obama's tax plan to increase tax over $250,000/year would hurt him. His statements were logically incoherent, statistically improbable. And yet, he was sure that he had a solid case against the Obama tax plan of 2008. And so did hundreds of thousnads (perhaps millions) of others. These people are beyond help or hope. (To be clear: there are reasonable considerations against Obama's plan. JtP could not, however, elaborate any that were against his interests)

> No, he is caring for his OWN interests in saying that. As does Warren Buffett. Sure, his narrow next year interests are to pay less taxes. But his long term interest is that he will not have to hire a private army to protect his every move because of social unrest. Nor that he will have to finance his own private hospital for his kids, because disease control in communal (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals is breaking down. Nor that he will have to fly in everyone he wants to meet because the road infrastructure is breaking down.

> What Bill Gates and Warren Buffett understand is that the US is falling behind, and they don't want that to happen. That IS in their interest.

Why do these discussions always reduce to "X's own interest" = maximising their bank account?

Gates might (and most likely does) care about generally making the world a better place, and so it is in his interest to suggest measures that ease the burden on low-income people.

(Note that this explanation avoids proposing that he is explicitly staving off worldwide societal collapse so that he and his family can live in peace without paying for private this and private that. It might have this as a side effect, but I find it extremely unlikely that this monetary calculation is what he is thinking.)

Are people who vote 'for their interests' (that is, for what you believe their interests are) but can't articulate why also stupid?

I'm curious about this non-stupid guy you posited, who can soundly reason about his vote 'against his interest' (that is, against what you believe his interest is) - is there any reason he can't make the same argument as you from his reverse perspective?

I'm wondering why you don't leave your subjective opinions about others' interests out of it, and just say 'people who can't soundly reason about their votes are stupid' - something relatively uncontroversial. Or is your sound reasoning somehow automatically superior to other people's sound reasoning?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

It's not what I believe their interests are. It's what THEY claim their interests are. I'm sorry, but if you claim to vote to a party because "they believe in small government", despite the last 30 years of data showing that government & expenses grow under said party control much more than under the other party's control, then you are not smart.

The specific example I gave was of JtP, who was (for a short time) a hero and looked upon figure in a section of the population. His vote and declared interests (as declared by himself) do not align, and his reasoning is flawed. And unfortunately, that is extremely common.

> Are people who vote 'for their interests' (that is, for what you believe their interests are) but can't articulate why also stupid?

I don't know. Do you? I mean, you might be doing "the right thing" for the right reasons, in which case you are not stupid, and you might be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, in which case you are stupid (but lucky). I was discussing cases in which there is apparent evidence for improvement of outcome.

> is there any reason he can't make the same argument as you from his reverse perspective?

No, he can (and should) make the same arugment about me, making me non stupid but working against my interests from his perspective. Which is a base for discussion - he might convince me (or might not, or we might agree to disagree), and find some way to work together.

e.g. one might believe that government should backstop failing banks, and one might not. There might be evidence one way or the other, but probably not conclusive evidence. Either one of us may believe the other is working against his interest. And neither of us will really be wrong.

> and just say 'people who can't soundly reason about their votes are stupid' - something relatively uncontroversial.

That's actually what I was trying to say. I was just focusing about the thing that highlights a subset of those people: working against their own interests. NOT what I believe their interests are (that's what you assume, but never have I said that), but about what they declare their interests to be (I should have been more clear about that).

If you think it's that one-sided, you need to spend more time listening to the opposition. Here are some good reasons to oppose public health care:

- It will be more expensive due to government inefficiency

- There will be no incentive to innovate

- Health care run by government bureaucrats will be uncompassionate, due to distance from the community, and may not appropriately value human life and suffering

- A government that owns your health care can deny it to you

- Public health care options compete unfairly with private ones

You may not think these are good reasons, but a person doesn't have to be badly misinformed, stupid, or spiteful to find them persuasive.

Actually, a person has to be willingly uninformed to find them persuasive. Because there are actually case studies to be made, rather than evaluate ideas in vacuum:

- more expensive: It costs much less in every other country that has a single payer system, despite government inefficiency (including the Swiss and German system, where everything is private even though it's single payer, and the UK, France and Israel where it is public or private, and in Canada where it is completely public). And yet, those countries enjoy better health in every possible measurement.

- innovation: Those places all comparable innovation to the US (especially if normalized to "average entrepreneurship level" of the country - e.g. there's much less of that in Germany and France in general, but actually much more in Israel)

- uncompassionate: That is demonstrably not true in the above countries. Furthermore, the private system in the US is already demonstrably not compassionate in any way.

- government can deny health care: Government can do anything it pleases, like jail you, or confiscate all money not on your person at a press of a button (and if you're going through texas, all money on your person as well. Oops, can't pay for healthcare! private healthcare denied for you!) - that's a strawman. If you look at Switzerland, Japan, UK, France, Canada, ..., people who get on the wrong side of the government get better healthcare than people on the right side of the government in the US. No one is denied healthcare! The Israelis even treat the Gazans they bombarded the day before.

- Unfair competition: That's your only statement that is not demonstrably false using a counterexample. In fact, it's true. That's because it makes healthcare into a utility, much like schooling and water supply.

So, one reason that is not based on demonstrably false assumptions. That one is debatable; some people think healthcare should be available like schools, others do not. That should be what is being discussed, not the other reasons.

I actually listened to the other side, and heard one other good reason to avoid public health care:

- There is no reason people who care about their health should subsidize people who don't take care of their health (w.r.t exercise, nutrition, alcohol and drug consumption, regular medical attention, etc) as the latter consume much more healthcare services.

Which is again debatable: The same is true for basically every other shared cost facility (including utilities, fire services, police forces, road use, ...)

If the debate was around that, I would be happy. But somehow, in American politics, it has always been improper to bring up facts and case studies. And recently, it is becoming bad form to use logic.

They also treat the Gazans who bombed Israelis a day before: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/in-israeli-bed-faile...

Yes, they enjoy better health if you measure using blunt tools like "life expectancy". Of course, life expectancy is impacted by many more factors other than health care.

If you measure by things like "access to the latest technology/drugs" and "overall survival from first diagnosis of cancer" the US comes out on top in many, many areas despite the lack of uniform coverage.

Again, using blunt tools like life expectancy, one would argue that the UK has a better healthcare system. Of course, if you're a cystic fibrosis patient and can't afford the $300K/yr for the drug Kalydeco because the NHS doesn't cover it (although nearly every insurance company in the US covers), it doesn't quite seem that great.

Although Kalydeco has been approved, it is unavailable in the UK to most of the patients who qualify for it as it is undergoing a "pricing assessment".

My argument is two fold: 1) Measure such as "life expectancy" are a poor indicator of the quality of health care one receives. 2) Although the US healthcare system has many problems, it covers many, many drugs, often used to treat serious illnesses such as CF and cancer that aren't covered by countries that have single payer systems.

So I take it you disagree?

I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I strongly disagree with measuring quality of life by how doped to the gills you can get on someone else's dime. And the measure you dismiss as "blunt" -- longevity -- has its good points as a rule of thumb measure. Stuff that kills usually isn't exactly good for your quality of life prior to killing you.

The drug in question is designed to help a tiny portion of the CF population which is an "orphan disease" to begin with. It is deadly and involves a lot of suffering, so it is a "dread disease". I think using a new drug that has the potential to help a mere 1500 Americans as your example because of the strong emotions associated with "saving" someone from something so awful amounts to a bullshit example.

Also, I worked for an American insurance company for five years. My diagnosis automatically disqualified me from some of their policies. So I suspect the reason American companies claim to cover this drug is because American rules are designed such that people with CF have trouble getting coverage at all. I was an industry insider for five years. I know how they make their money. Spending jillions on a small number of very needy people is not how they line their shareholder's pockets.

Most likely, they won't pay for it in England in part because that would involve actually paying that ridiculously high annual bill because I believe they have some form of national coverage. The American companies may list it as a covered medication, then do everything in their power to not cover any of the mere 1500 Americans with the alleles it is supposed to help. Plus the initial reports were spindoctored to boost company stock. There is a certain amount of hype surrounding this drug. It is generally a bad example to give as some kind of "proof" that Americans have it better.

I also have multiple relatives who have or have had cancer. For brevity's sake, suffice it to say I am not as impressed as you are with the American approach to treating it.

That's not actually a valid measure. It is based on the assumption that newer=better. Because of how the US drug market works, as soon as a patent expires, the companies will work hard to discredit older treatments and find new patentable ones, including statistically invalid manipulation of the research data.

> "overall survival from first diagnosis of cancer" the US comes out on top in many, many areas despite the lack of uniform coverage.

While that is true (as far as I know), it comes out on top but not by a significant margin; and the base cancer and diabetes rates are much higher. This may or may not be attributable to the US health system, but I'm sure it does have a part (In the US, you get a pill for everything. In most single payer health systems, you get dietary and exercise advice before you get a pill for something chronic).

> if you're a cystic fibrosis patient and can't afford the $300K/yr for the drug Kalydeco because the NHS doesn't cover it (although nearly every insurance company in the US covers),

Well, Mz just commented about this specific example. I'm somewhat familiar with the Israeli single payer system (I have relatives that unfortunately had to use it extensively) - and it covers every single proven life saving treatment (life extending treatments are covered depending on a cost/benefit model). I don't know what their exact definition for proven is - but the Doc I talked to said it was reasonable (FDA approved, at least 1 year on the market since approval, and a few other similar requirements).

And the most important thing? With the exception of Canada, I think every single payer country lets you have supplemental private insurance if you want, for those live extending treatments, and e.g. if you want to be treated in a private/hotel hospital, or in a different country of your choice.

The dichotomy of "single payer vs. private" is a false one, just like public schools don't eliminate private schools - it just establishes a baseline that everyone has access to, and requires the private industry to deliver significantly more value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Personally, I try to measure myself objectively by averaging comparables. e.g. Around age 20, I figured out that I cannot blame my horrible shape on my genetics (even though they were at the root of it) - because I knew too many people with similar problems who were in much better shape than I was. So I figured out what the problem really was, and at age 20, after never having been able to complete a run of one mile, built my endurance to 10 miles over 6 months.

As for superiority, you can write down your predictions, and then evaluate them later; you'll see if your feeling of superiority is justified or illusory.

And it REALLY IS helpful to know when you are superior in some respect - or you'll be wasting your time and effort needlessly.

Yes, this is normal. People do not vote for their own interests. As a rule, they vote unselfishly, in a way that they believe reflects the community or national interests. [1]

If you want people to vote for your idea, you need to convince them that your idea is good policy for everyone, not that it benefits them personally.

[1] http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/ssq.pdf

But in general - the statement that "people do not vote unselfishly or in a way they believe reflects the community" is false. It is true that some do. I've read some research before from western countries that have a multiparty system (UK, Germany, France, Israel, ...) and with very high probability, people vote for whoever it is their parents do. It's not national interests - it's familial interests and/or identity. (And, sorry, I can't find a link to that right now)

People do what is in their own interest by definition. That's the only way you can be sure what their interest is. I think what you're complaining about is people not doing what you believe you would do in their position.

No, people do what they believe at that point in time is in their interest, and may (and often do) revise and reverse their beliefs a moment later.

May acts, like voting, are by virtue of being done every e.g. 4 years, are supposed to reflect long term interest.

An analogy: Your immediate interest might be to get the gratification from eating a jelly doughnut, though your long term interest might be to lose weight and be more fit and healthy.

I'm referring to the many people who vote once every 4 years to eat a doughnut every single day of the next 4 years. There are a lot of them, and they are voting against their (long term) interests.