4 ms·

We live in a large nation, why not let a few states trial a program before running it nationally? Move fast and break things isn't good enough when lives and li

We live in a large nation, why not let a few states trial a program before running it nationally? Move fast and break things isn't good enough when lives and livelihoods are at risk in my opinion.

sprafa 10y ago
Controlled experiments (by behavioural psychologists) could probably do very well
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Testing on human subjects is limited and I don't think you can build a sample size that is large enough. Single payer is a great example, Californian or NY voters will likely vote in such a system while Texans would likely opt into a free market approach. Wait a few years and see the outcomes of each policy. Now you can make an evidence based decision rather than a political one.
  - spangry 10y ago
    Well, after arguing that it's impractical to run RCTs I guess it's time for a bit of a 'climb-down', because this is a really great idea. I could definitely see this working in a place like the USA, where you have lots of big States with diverging political views. I wonder what would be the best way to implement something like this? Just spitballing, but what about Federal grants to partially fund the 'treatment' States (with non-participating States acting as controls), with the policy issue and various 'treatments' negotiated between the Fed and State level? And then after that, States sign on using a mechanism similar to California proposition voting during State elections maybe? Or maybe even push it down to a local government level? I seem to remember somewhere in the US conducting trials of basic income around the 50s or 60s. Maybe there's a model there...
    - webmaven 10y ago
      > lots of big States with diverging political views. The thing is, political views don't diverge quite as much as it is being made to seem. Gerrymandering scrambles the signal[0] quite a bit and the Electoral College then magnifies[1] the apparent differences. [0] http://theweek.com/speedreads/541955/howgerrymandering-works-graphic http://theweek.com/speedreads/541955/howgerrymandering-works... [1] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
  - webmaven 10y ago
    Unfortunately, you then have to contend with assymetric information effects such as self selection, where sick people who are faced with increased expenses under a free market approach move to CA and NY, while healthy people who would pay more under a single-payer approach would move to TX.

We live in a large nation, why not let a few states trial a program before running it nationally? Move fast and break things isn't good enough when lives and livelihoods are at risk in my opinion.

sprafa 10y ago

Controlled experiments (by behavioural psychologists) could probably do very well

cmdrfred 10y ago
Testing on human subjects is limited and I don't think you can build a sample size that is large enough. Single payer is a great example, Californian or NY voters will likely vote in such a system while Texans would likely opt into a free market approach. Wait a few years and see the outcomes of each policy. Now you can make an evidence based decision rather than a political one.
- spangry 10y ago
  Well, after arguing that it's impractical to run RCTs I guess it's time for a bit of a 'climb-down', because this is a really great idea. I could definitely see this working in a place like the USA, where you have lots of big States with diverging political views. I wonder what would be the best way to implement something like this? Just spitballing, but what about Federal grants to partially fund the 'treatment' States (with non-participating States acting as controls), with the policy issue and various 'treatments' negotiated between the Fed and State level? And then after that, States sign on using a mechanism similar to California proposition voting during State elections maybe? Or maybe even push it down to a local government level? I seem to remember somewhere in the US conducting trials of basic income around the 50s or 60s. Maybe there's a model there...
  - webmaven 10y ago
    > lots of big States with diverging political views. The thing is, political views don't diverge quite as much as it is being made to seem. Gerrymandering scrambles the signal[0] quite a bit and the Electoral College then magnifies[1] the apparent differences. [0] http://theweek.com/speedreads/541955/howgerrymandering-works-graphic http://theweek.com/speedreads/541955/howgerrymandering-works... [1] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
- webmaven 10y ago
  Unfortunately, you then have to contend with assymetric information effects such as self selection, where sick people who are faced with increased expenses under a free market approach move to CA and NY, while healthy people who would pay more under a single-payer approach would move to TX.